Well went tonight to Midwest Photo and held the D700 for the first time. I loved feel and quality of the body but I was totally lost when it came to operating it!
Seems like a very nice body but I am going to stick with my Canon equipment and get the 1D IV when released.
I do need a nice wide angle now.
I have the 35L 85L 70-200 2.8 IS, 100 macro
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
It depends on the lenses more than anything else.
The 14-24 is a compelling reason to stick with Nikon but the 85L and 135L are compelling reasons for Canon
he needs 2 bodies - they don't have to be the same brand.
I heard that nikon 35mm 1.8 has reptty good quality, but I havent seen any pics
AGeoJO wrote:
I love selected Nikkor zoom lenses (14-24, 24-70, 200-400, etc.) but their primes, except for the 200mm f/2.0 and longer lenses, are not quite as good as those on the Canon (a disclaimer here: to me, at least). The long Nikkor lenses are excellent but quite a bit more expensive than those of Canon plus they are not readily available. Keeping up with two systems is taking a toll and I am about to give up my "dark side" setup and just stick with one and that will be Canon for me .. There are new and excellent Canon lenses, like the 17 TS-E, 24mm f/1.4 II, etc. to make up for the really top-drawer Nikkor 14-24mm. Now, I am just "praying" that Canon would upgrade the 24-70mm, incorporating IS with improved optics ....Show more →
Chad S wrote:
Can anyone give me a valid reason to stay with the D700 over the MKIII?
Yes.
You need to stop switching cameras looking for equipment nirvana.
Both brands are excellent and can produce very fine photography. In the end it is essentially a coin flip as to which to choose unless you already have invested in a lot of glass, etc. for one system or the other or you are one of a very small number of photographers with very specialized needs.
Keep whatever you have. Learn to use it well. Worry more about photographs and less about buying equipment.
Chad S wrote:
I actually feel like my D700 is more brick like than the 1D.
The 1D kind of melts into my hands. It feels like you're holding on to a well crafted weapon.
And hence my comments concerning it being a very subjective choice. For me, and my larger hands, the Nikons feel much better. I typically shoot with two bodies, one with a 400mm f2.8 lens mounted on a monopod, the other slung over my shoulder with a 80-200. I always had trouble grabbing the Canon, one-handed, activating AF, framing and getting the shot. Canon's always felt as if they were going to fall out of my hand. I have no such issue with the Nikons as they are just better balanced . . . for me.
As far as craftmanship, you really can't say that either Canon or Nikon is better than the other. Both companies pro bodies are built with the utmost in quality. And as far as getting the job done, either with work equally well despite what some may say.
As far a megapixels when is enough too much? I've printed 20x30 images from my Canon MK II's, MK III's, Nikon D700 and D3's with equal results unless they are low light high ISO shots then the Nikons have easily ruled. I've shot all those listed in low light, high ISO settings and there is just no comparison not so much in the amount of noise but the type and quality of that noise.
If you're current camera does what you need then keep it and invest the money in more glass, better lighting, or other equipment that will actually enhance what you're currently doing.
Jun Zhou wrote:
I heard that nikon 35mm 1.8 has reptty good quality, but I havent seen any pics
It is a fairly new lens and it is optically a great lens but it is a DX lens (similar to EF-S in Canon's term) designed for crop cameras, with other words. A different approach taken by Nikon here - You still can mount a DX lens into a FF body like the D700 and you will get the DX format with that but you can forget about mounting an EF-S lens on FF bodies on the Canon side.
AGeoJO wrote:
It is a fairly new lens and it is optically a great lens but it is a DX lens (similar to EF-S in Canon's term) designed for crop cameras, with other words. A different approach taken by Nikon here - You still can mount a DX lens into a FF body like the D700 and you will get the DX format with that but you can forget about mounting an EF-S lens on FF bodies on the Canon side.
Nikon seems to be putting a lot of effort into their DX lens lineup, but that doesn't help full frame users very much.
All of the D series primes (20, 24, 35, etc..) are in desperate need of an update.
Post some of your photos.
Now, explain how a 'new' camera would have made them any better.
I think you need to decide: Are you a gear whore, or a photographer.
If "It's all about the equipment!" then by all means, go buy whatever will make you happy (for the next 6 months.) If you aspire to be a photographer, you'd be far better off spending your time, money, and anxiety worrying about where to go and how to shoot better pictures.
That is why I've stuck with Canon.
.. There are new and excellent Canon lenses,