If they really wanted to DOUBLE DOWN on the epic they would also provide a DIGITAL TELECONVERTER SRAW option... Get an 18mp raw file not by pixel-binning but by cropping the sensor to DX no matter whether you're using FX or DX lenses.
We'll see.
Exactly what I'm hoping for. I don't want to have to get a ton of new glass just to use the D800.
If everything else is how I described, I would probably almost never shoot in full 36MP mode (again the assumption here is an 18MP PIXEL-BINNED option in RAW.
I would expect the TELECONVERTER mode to be matched by an optical viewfinder that masks (as on the D3) and would use this only if I Need extra reach or want more DOF in a shot.
The answer to "why not crop later" is threefold:
1. I'd rather crop when I'm paid to do it than do it for free later
2. I'd like the consistently sized files
3. Why waste all that storage spaceif 18MP files are MORE than sufficient to get the job done admirably.
Having never owned an FX body, i will say that the d7000 isnt as terrible a body as everyone says... AF wise, it's just barely behind the d300, which has the same af as the d700...the high iso i've found while not as good as FX nikon, is pretty much on par with the 5dII...which i hesitate to say more photogs are using than the d700...and the d7000 af is leagues better than a 5dII...again, not an fx shooter here, and while the 7k isnt a 700, it's no slouch for sure... I cant say i ever missed a shot that was the cameras fault...
Most of the time we are using a D7k for formals and with flash. I recently shot with the D7k in the studio and love the results (See my site link for some of those images). Use a fast card (like 45mbs) if you want it to keep up. AF is good, not great, but good (better than Canon's offerings in its range IMO, like the 7d).
The 700 with a fast 85 for lowlight and portraits. Creamy shots with wide ap lenses. AF is better and I can tell.
ozpall wrote:
Man so much hate to the d7k, I own both and I love my d7k!!!!
I love mine too, but i'd def rather have a 700...i've got a 70s, 90, 7000, and a 300... Problem is most of my glass is dx, so it's tough to switch... So i run what i brung, and so far, i honestly cant really justify neeeeding a d700....
As for the strong bias, i remember when the 7k first came out there were a bunch of people who discounted its ability, even after being shown proof, because they hated the fact that it was 75% of a d700, and 90% (in some ways more) of a d300/300s, at a lower price point...plus they would have to explain to fellow shooters why they "downgraded", and risk looking "amateur"...NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE HERE.... Just saying...
That being said, i know i'd "feel" more "professional" with a d700 in my bag.... But we all know that the camera isn't what makes great images...
I own both and have shot one one wedding and several indoor concerts with them. The D700 is definitely better at ISO1600 and above, but the D7000 is no slouch. Looks like no one's mentioned it, but at base ISO, the D7000 is better and has more shadow recovery capability. Fix it on a tripod for a nice architectural shot inside a wedding before/after/during the wedding, and a long exposure will get you pretty much what a 3 frame HDR gets you. At least that's my experience.
ozpall wrote:
Man so much hate to the d7k, I own both and I love my d7k!!!!
I didn't see any hate flinged at the D7K.
As I said I own one... and i wouldn't own it if I didn't like it. When I go out with the family the D7K is the camera I take with me (usually with the 35/2 lens on it) and I've always been happy with the results.
That said if one is asking in the context of a wedding, the D700 is a more capable body under those circumsances.
lisy78 wrote:
I didn't see any hate flinged at the D7K.
As I said I own one... and i wouldn't own it if I didn't like it. When I go out with the family the D7K is the camera I take with me (usually with the 35/2 lens on it) and I've always been happy with the results.
That said if one is asking in the context of a wedding, the D700 is a more capable body under those circumsances.
But this IS the wedding photography forum....soooo the context is always assumed to be for use to shoot a wedding...aaaaand the fact that you've deemed it a "family outing camera", is kinda like saying it's not good enough to shoot a wedding with....
i'd agree that there def isn't any LOVE being shown the d7000 here....more like a feeling of indifference....given the CHOICE to shoot a wedding with any body i want, i'd pick a d3s (d4) no question....but this is reality.....i'd rather have better glass than "better" bodies...especially when i think about how people used to make killer wedding photos with d70's, d200's, canon 1d mk II's and worse....think about fuji s5's that everyone used to go gaga over....
as i mentioned in another forum, this guy has been shooting with d7k's for the past year or so, and he's loving them.... http://www.rlmorrisweddings.com/
and my "family outing camera" is a panasonic gf2 m4/3's....pretty impressed with it so far :-)
NathanHamler wrote:
But this IS the wedding photography forum....soooo the context is always assumed to be for use to shoot a wedding...aaaaand the fact that you've deemed it a "family outing camera", is kinda like saying it's not good enough to shoot a wedding with....
i'd agree that there def isn't any LOVE being shown the d7000 here....more like a feeling of indifference....given the CHOICE to shoot a wedding with any body i want, i'd pick a d3s (d4) no question....but this is reality.....i'd rather have better glass than "better" bodies...especially when i think about how people used to make killer wedding photos with d70's, d200's, canon 1d mk II's and worse....think about fuji s5's that everyone used to go gaga over....
as i mentioned in another forum, this guy has been shooting with d7k's for the past year or so, and he's loving them.... http://www.rlmorrisweddings.com/
and my "family outing camera" is a panasonic gf2 m4/3's....pretty impressed with it so far :-)...Show more →
Point taken.
However I didn't mean to say that the D7000 is only good for family outing... when I'm going out with the family I have a choice between a couple of D700 and one D7000. This is my family we're talking about here... if I felt the images were crap I would NOT grab the D7000. I see that as a FEATURE, not a flaw. And I grab it because of it's smaller size and weight and because it shoots video, not because the D700 are "too good" for the task or something like that
I also agree with you on the "better glass > better body" in fact when I was using Canon I ended up buying used 5D instead of 5D2 etc. etc.... however Nikon's (and Canon's for that matter) better glass (zooms anyway) is kind of hard to use with a crop body.. while the 14-24 might actually be pretty interesting, the 24-70 and especially the 70-200 become really tough on a crop. The result is of course buying DX glass... which then creates a significant barrier to entry to full frame if one eventually wants to get there. In fact once the D800 comes out and D700 used prices drop I would certainly be in TOTAL agreement with you that someone starting out should put their money on glass and buy a used D700 rather than the D800.
Of course in the end it's NOT about the camera you use... but if someone ASKS I think it's fair to answer the question rather than offer "you should invest the money in a workshop rather than spend more on the body" ... which might in fact be true but is not an answer to the question
Ciao!
Alessandro
P.S. To the OP - in case I didn't make it particularly clear... a fairly large group of Nikon shooters like using Nikkor's 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 VR 2 lenses. You may find the ranges to be more useful on full frame than on a crop body. I do.
Nathan, I found it interseting that you chose rlmorris as an example of d7000 shooting. Very few of the images on his site are actually sharply focused, especially his group photos. I own a d700 and d7000. The 7000 is the first nikon i,ve ever owned that had focusing issues. It is also the first nikon that i've seen so many complaints about focusing issues. As soon as the d800 hits the shelves the d7000 becomes a trade in and it will have the same 2000 clicks that it has now. I don't trust the 7000 and would never use it for a professsional job.
vraspa wrote:
Nathan, I found it interseting that you chose rlmorris as an example of d7000 shooting. Very few of the images on his site are actually sharply focused, especially his group photos. I own a d700 and d7000. The 7000 is the first nikon i,ve ever owned that had focusing issues. It is also the first nikon that i've seen so many complaints about focusing issues. As soon as the d800 hits the shelves the d7000 becomes a trade in and it will have the same 2000 clicks that it has now. I don't trust the 7000 and would never use it for a professsional job....Show more →
haha are you sure you're not seeing quality degradation from exported jpgs being compressed for web use?? i know i have plenty of shots that look razor sharp on my screen, in PS and Aperture, and then you throw them online, and they just lose that little edge...but whatever that's the price of compressing stuff for web...
i just looked through his whole portfolio, and didn't see one thing that was OOF (maybe some motion blur here and there), much less anything that was front or back focused...
my d7000 required some AF fine tuning for some of my lenses, that wasn't required for other bodies using the same lenses...but i'm all dialed in, so i dont worry about it now...it's a non issue...maybe you wouldn't trust your d7000, but i damn sure trust mine....
also, i've had plenty of shots where i focused in the heat of battle, and the subject moved forward or backwards slightly, and the resulting image missed focus on an eye, or etc...but i def dont contribute that to the camera...that's just the name of the game...
NathanHamler wrote:
haha are you sure you're not seeing quality degradation from exported jpgs being compressed for web use?? i know i have plenty of shots that look razor sharp on my screen, in PS and Aperture, and then you throw them online, and they just lose that little edge...but whatever that's the price of compressing stuff for web...
I visited the site, and it is a little hard to tell how things are "supposed" to look. If I resize my browser window, the images resize to fit. So it's quite difficult to tell if things are not sharp.. or are being rendered as such.
One reason I prefer fixed resolution online portfolios, even if sometimes you get the giant screen with teeny picture effect... there's not enough consistency in methodology to resize images dynamically for web use.
lisy78 wrote:
If everything else is how I described, I would probably almost never shoot in full 36MP mode (again the assumption here is an 18MP PIXEL-BINNED option in RAW.
I would expect the TELECONVERTER mode to be matched by an optical viewfinder that masks (as on the D3) and would use this only if I Need extra reach or want more DOF in a shot.
The answer to "why not crop later" is threefold:
1. I'd rather crop when I'm paid to do it than do it for free later
2. I'd like the consistently sized files
3. Why waste all that storage spaceif 18MP files are MORE than sufficient to get the job done admirably....Show more →
I love my D7K but my already sold D700 was better. Just a hobby for me, to take my boy's pictures so 12 MP is plenty. Needed cash for house DP, so my D700 needed to go. I would get it again if economy allows. It (D700 and FX in general) is so good for portraits (and I believe wedding).
CRFTony wrote:
I have a 700 and a 7000. I really am not a fan of the 7000. There's much more noise at 200/400. I'll happily sell it when/if the D800 comes out.
That's interesting. Under what conditions do you see this noise?
