luminosity wrote:
1. It is not lenses alone that determine what you can photograph, when you can photograph and how well. The D3s, just to name the best 35mm camera out there right now, allows you to do things that you simply cannot do with a D90.
2. Those who think the D700 is going to drop in price are living in fantasyland. I'd be very pleased and pretty much content if I had just three lenses: A 24/1.4, 85/1.4 and 180/2.8, with my little 50/1.8 thrown in there for good measure (all that going along with my D700).
1. It's still the lens that will determine what you photo, and how well. If taking photos of wildlife, a 70-300mm VR plus D700 will not be as good as a D90 + Nikon 200-400mm VR. If taking photos of architecture a D700 plus 28-105mm will not be as good as a D90 + 14-24mm or 24mm PCE. If doing portraits, a D700 plus 28-105mm will not be as good as D90 with either 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4. If taking wide landscapes, a D700 + Tokina 19-35mm will not be as good as a D90 + (just about anything you put on it. ) It's still the lens that determines what you can photo.
2. Why do you think a D700 will defy gravity when absolutely no other DSLR has done so? Used D700 = $1,500 by the end of the year. (My prediction.) They are already selling for $1,8xx on eBay. You honestly don't think they'll drop at least another $400 by end of the year? Only way that would seem plausible is if economy sees massive inflation. If that happens, lens prices will skyrocket.
No, I don't think they will drop that low at all. I think it will stay where it's at for sure. It won't be "defying gravity," but instead will be where it ought to be, given what it brings to the table. The D300 still goes for about 900-1K used, and the D300s goes for about $1600 or something like that new. There's no way a D700 in anything less than awful condition is going to be found for $1,500 for a long time. A D700 in great condition at the same price as a D300s? Not a chance, and remember that the D300s will be with us for a couple years in all.
I find it truly ironic that you love to push the "zooms make fast primes unnecessary" campaign you've created, yet then come close to trashing the very thing that makes this so in your mind (high ISOs, etc.).
Kent is dreaming once again about super low D700 prices so he can finally buy one. Then he can use the angle that the price was so low, it was a no brainer decision to buy a D700. And once again, D700 prices will not hit $1200 for many many years. I'm quite tired of hearing the same rhetoric (from only one individual it seems) that a lens is the only significant factor which determines how you create a picture. Good glass is indeed super important but a good body plays an important role as well. More important than any of this IMO is good lighting....
You may not like my lens selection because I have not spent $1800 on the 24-70mm. For the record I tried it and I am not convinced it's for me. I actually like the 28-105mm better as a walk around lens. Even Bjorn Rorslett http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AF28-105IF thinks it does pretty well optically. Just because a lens doesn't cost a $1000 doesn't mean its not any good. I also had the 80-200mm F2.8 and sold it for the 70-300mm which does really well out to about 200mm.
I don't shoot ultra wide very often so the reason I said the Tokina 19-35mm (another under rated lens) is it would be the least used of all my other lenses and it doesn't make much sense sinking $1800 into a 14-24mm for it to sit in my bag. If I find myself shooting a lot at wide angle I will look into the rumored Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR if they release it.
I like my primes for the best optical quality. Once I find out what focal lengths I am using with my D700 the most then I will plan my lens purchases. I am selling my 17-50mm and will still have money to buy lenses I just don't know which ones yet.
Just wait for the "son of D700" replacement to come out and watch the D700 prices drop. There are plenty of gear geeks with too much money who will flood the market with nice used D700 bodies.
The competitive battle between Nikon and Canon will continue to drive prices down. (Nikon is making up for it with their outrageous lens prices!)
) It's still the lens that determines what you can photo.