My wife tells me to stop whining and get a D3. She thinks a D700 is pathetic... But when i buy a D3 she want a beemer just like Guys wife. Sheesh i'm flat broke already
R. Francois wrote:
My wife tells me to stop whining and get a D3. She thinks a D700 is pathetic... But when i buy a D3 she want a beemer just like Guys wife. Sheesh i'm flat broke already
My wife better not read these kinds of threads. She's fine with her ol' Neon
R. Francois wrote:
i have no idea. It doesn't have to kill a 5D if you ask me. I'd be happy with a camera that blows a 5D out of the water. It doesn't have to kill it...
I think you got your wish or at least 99% of it. The D700 will "blow the 5d out of the water" in every area but that little one called IQ in the lower ISO ranges 100-800, in which case it will sadly finish second in a field of two.
jamesf99 wrote:
I think you got your wish or at least 99% of it. The D700 will "blow the 5d out of the water" in every area but that little one called IQ in the lower ISO ranges 100-800, in which case it will sadly finish second in a field of two.
how can you say it won't keep up with the 5D at lower ISO's?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Then I suggest that you post some of your own real-life photos that show the difference, so that we can all be convinced.
Nah, no need to have J99 post photos. You can picture the difference yourself...in your own mind....Canon files look like crispy, perfect, computer generated images.....and Nikon files look like....photographs
I'm just glad I didn't invest too much in DX glasswork and kept most of my old but still reasonably good FF lenses... Anyway that means saving up for a 14-24 as well...
