Nikon D700 tell me about it

M

Moleeth

Suspended / Banned
Messages
131
Edit My Images
No
Thinking of going Full Frame and chopping my D200 in for a D700 with a Nikon Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and possibly the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8(although that would probably be a future purchase). This would be for landscape photography which is what I do 99% of the time as far as photography/free time goes.

I am taking my photography a lot more seriously nowadays and fancy a move up to something higher grade than my used D200. This seems like a natural progression. I would be tempted by the D3 but id rather spend the extra cash on some glass.

what is everyone's opinions on the D700?, and anyone got sample pics from the 14-24mm and 24-70mm
 
A D700 wouldn't be my first choice for landscape work.

Neither would the 14-24, as you can't fit polorisors, ND filters or use ND Grads.
 
5D mark 1 classic with a 24-70 on it.

manfrotto tripod and a bunch of filters.

all imo of course
 
D700 will be spot on, believe me. I've only reverted to a D300 (well, as D300S to be exact) as I really missed the DX crop for my predominant wildlife works. The D700 will NOT disppoint
 
puddleduck said:
A D700 wouldn't be my first choice for landscape work.

Neither would the 14-24, as you can't fit polorisors, ND filters or use ND Grads.
Click to expand...

Just curious as to why you wouldn't use the D700 for landscapes? Is it because of the lower megapixel count compared with the 5D MK II for example?

The 14-24 looks like a beast! I can see why it doesn't take filters.

Cheers :)
 
Jaz said:
Just curious as to why you wouldn't use the D700 for landscapes? Is it because of the lower megapixel count compared with the 5D MK II for example?

The 14-24 looks like a beast! I can see why it doesn't take filters.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

I never said I wouldn't use one. I have.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=87621

But I stand by what I say. It has fairly low acuity for distant objects (think of fir trees on the horizon).

The camera is optimized for high ISO work. Even Nikon says as much, the D3X is target for high res. work, so I think the OP needs to think about what he'll gain from going to a D200 to a D700 here. Not a lot in all honesty.

It'll work off course but its not my first choice - and I own one :)
 
I'm sure you won't be disappointed whichever brand you choose. The difference in pixel count will be negligible.

My only advice would be to handle the cameras, and see which feels right.

The 14-24 looks like a beast! I can see why it doesn't take filters.
Click to expand...

It does, you just need some Blu-Tak :)
 
Jaz said:
Sorry, I meant why would it not be your 'first port of call'. Cheers for the answer.

Do you still have the D700? :)


:D
Click to expand...

Yeah I do still have the D700.

From the OP's point of view there is no resolution gain going from the D200 to D700, and a huge 14-24 f/2.8 lens that doesn't take filters is overkill (don't need f/2.8 when you'll be at f/11).

So from what I can see, you are looking at a £3k outlay, and I'm not convinced the combo will do much better than a D200 + Tokina 12-24, certainly if you want to do big prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top