User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Digital Camera Chat


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Digital Camera Chat
Page 3 of 114 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last Thread Tools
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-04, 13:37

I think you're probably right. But it will depreciate D700's a little more, nonetheless. Personally, I think it'll have 24MP like the D3x, and ISO's about on par with the D700 - even a smidge better in the prints.

It won't effect either of the D3s, which is highly specialized, fast, and has market leading sensitivity, or the D3x, which doesn't sell enough, and won't languish long anyway.

It will help Nikon market a whole lot of D800 to those looking for a "pro camera" at an enthusiast price...

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-02-04, 20:25

Thanks for your thoughts, sirs.

PB PM: you have a D300, a good camera of course, but do you plan to "go full frame" sometime?

Matsu: I have a D300S, not a D700.

On the price of a new DX Nikon, I think the company has a bit of room to go up substantially from the D300S level. Firstly, because of the exchange rate issues. Secondly, because the D7000 is much pricier than the D90, so it stands to reason that the next rung up will be pricier too. Thirdly, because Canon sell a really expensive crop-sensor camera in the 1D Mark IV — proving that the market still exists.

I think the 1D Mark IV was a somewhat timid move by Canon, but I do think there's room for a crop-sensor camera priced above $1300 (D300S) but below $4700 (1D Mark IV).

$2000 doesn't strike me as impossible for a Nikon DX model if the camera is suitably impressive. An example of impressive: D300-class or better mechanicals, D7000 sensor or the rumoured 24-megapixel backlit CMOS sensor, 10 frames per second, built-in Wi-Fi, built-in SiRFstarIV, possibly built-in Bluetooth for new remote controls and other accessories. Maybe something radical like an internal 80 GB SSD supporting write speeds over 200 MB/s (will need USB 3.0). These things wouldn't add $700 to the cost of a D300S, but they might allow Nikon to charge $700 more, given the competitive landscape.

Sony's success at selling gimmicks must be scaring Nikon and Canon equally. There's a huge market out there for whom a camera is clearly a black box that magically create photos. The more magic, the better, these people believe. There's no magic coming out of Canon or Nikon.

At the other end of the scale, there's also room for a stripped-down FX camera aimed at the purist photog, much like the 5D but cheaper. I doubt Nikon sees itself as the supplier for that market though — too snobbish by far.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-05, 05:38

I guess the question is: If there's a $3000 FX camera, will you buy a $2000 DX one?

Maybe? For me, such a camera just might need built-in stabilization. I can hold the D300 + Sigma f/2.8 down to what I think are some really low shutter speeds, but if you peep closely, the results don't compare with 70-200 VR in low light, and my hit ratio isn't going to improve with twice the MP. At the very least, the standard zoom needs it, but I see no problem putting it in the body, which has it's own advantages, even for companies like Nikon and Canon.

There's no 17-55 VR... There's no 24-70 VR either, but the bigger pixels/sensor should be just a little less critical of both high sensitivity, and focus/stability. I would have to carefully test the newer third party stabilized zooms as APSC resolutions continue to creep upwards. Sigma and Tamron both have new models to review. Interesting that Canon's had a 17-55 IS f/2.8 from the beginning, I think they recognize something here beyond just the marketability of stabilization, and there's some rumor of an f/2 17-55 patent from Canon! But I haven't seen it, and it doesn't mean they would build it either.

Their 24-70, like Nikon's, is also without stabilization: my suspicions might be correct at current pixel densities?

Maybe I should try Nikon's 17-55 again, people say it's very sharp. It could be that I'm completely wrong, and I'm just seeing wide open softness in low contrast lighting on the Sigma, and though I'm at low shutter speeds, it's not my hands, it's the light itself. In bright light, wide open, the lens is sharp: shutter speeds are faster, but contrast is a lot higher too... hmmm... The Nikon 70-200 isn't just stabilized, it's more neutral in color (doesn't warm-up as much) and it looks like it deals with contrast better. The best comparison might be to put both on a tripod (VR off on the 70-200) and shoot a somewhat unscientific comparison of their low light rendition.

Coming back to the DX vs FX question, it may depend on the lenses. Someone with need of a 100-300 f/2.8 for outdoor shooting, may indeed find the DX option more attractive. Me, I really want my 85 to frame like an 85, and a 35mm that does the same... I think I can continue living with a DX standard zoom, but I would like the ability to throw the background focus a bit more...

In our program, the college supports three platforms. Canon, Nikon and Hassleblad. Everything else, you're on your own. It's one reason Canon and Nikon aren't as troubled by Sony as they should be. They're imbedded in the industry, but that can turn around fast if instructors start requesting Sony or other equipment, which brings up a side note on Sigma - Foveon is the only other technology that's referenced at all in course materials...

I really like the built-in SSD idea. Around here there's this whole orthodoxy around card storage/data transfer. People freak out if you plug a camera into a computer: "you shouldn't transfer files that way; it could corrupt the card; you could lose an assignment!" To be honest, I never though about it. I've always plugged my camera into my computer. They make you buy a card reader by 2nd class, so at least one generation of digital photographers has a conception of best practices that treats cards very carefully. A camera that automatically backs-up your last card would be a lifesaver to these people.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-02-05, 11:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I guess the question is: If there's a $3000 FX camera, will you buy a $2000 DX one?
I wouldn't now, though I did roughly that a year ago, choosing the D300S instead of the D700. Since then I've realised:

1. The D300S has too much noise at base ISO. The base ISO is too high, the quantum efficiency too low, and the sensor too small to get the advertising-grade quality you can extract from an FX sensor in a studio (or better yet, a medium-format back). I thought my technical knowledge and high-quality prime lenses would make up for the smaller DX sensor, but they don't, at least with the D300S.

2. Merely matching fields of view isn't enough to get lens equivalence between DX and FX. With the DX camera you need a shorter focal length, which often already takes the edge off the optical quality (e.g. steep retrofocus instead of mild retrofocus or normal); and the lens is often slower (when you really need it to be faster); so you're too often operating near full aperture. Too often the comparison is between a 35 mm lens operating at a comfortable f/4 (on FX), and a 24/25 mm lens wide open at f/2.8 (on DX). Add the merciless pixel pitch needed by DX to match FX pixel counts, plus the increased strain on focusing accuracy, and you're suddenly seeing really quite dramatic differences in final image quality — very unlike DPReview's comparison images with double-Gauss fifties at optimum f-stops.

Back to Nikon though. The D700 is an odd product: it's basically a D3 minus the ruggedness. This is nice for D700 buyers, but hardly the best strategy for maximising profits for Nikon. I expect future cameras to widen the capability gap between the D700 successor and the D3S successor.

Furthermore, the D700 must cost more to manufacture than the 5D Mark II, yet the latter typically sells for slightly more, and in clearly greater numbers. There are only three reasons for that: the higher pixel count, the video feature, and the Canon brand appeal (the latter hinging on pixels and video for the last few years).

One way for Nikon to give themselves a break would be to make a stripped-down FX camera to profitably beat the current 5D Mark II (and with first-mover advantage over the forthcoming 5D Mark III), an upmarket DX camera to extract maximum cash from people who value "reach" and feature-count above image quality at any expense, and a no-holds-barred FX camera to wrestle away share from the EOS 1-series cameras. In truth the 1Ds Mark III is a very impressive machine, with a submarine-like hull quality and a stunning viewfinder. (The D3X has better picture quality, of course, but cannot match the old king for haptics.)

You're right to suspect the 17-55 mm f/2.8 Nikkor to be a high-performance design. It's a "negative-lead" design, like the professional 24-70 mm f/2.8 zooms from Nikon and Canon; different from the Tamron, Sigma, and Canon 17-5x mm f/2.8 lenses, which are all positive-lead types. Negative-lead designs have a few optical advantages, and they also allow for a more rugged mechanical construction; but they're more expensive because they require more large-aperture elements.

----------

In big-picture mode again, one thing that has surprised me is how rapidly sensors have improved recently. I thought that rate of improvement was history. Of course I expected pixel pitches to decrease for a decade or two as new manufacturing processes come online, and low-ISO dynamic range to increase to the full limit of the sensor as lower-noise readout tech is invented, but I thought we'd already squeezed out most of the quantum efficiency and high-ISO readout performance. And yet the D3S, 1D Mark IV, K-5, and LX5 have significantly improved upon their predecessors (the D3, 1D Mark III, DX sensors generally, and LX3 respectively). The D3S has a quantum efficiency of around 50% despite its huge area, which is highly impressive. Though this does remind us that limits are being reached: there will never be an FX camera with lower mid-tone noise at ISO 12800 than the current D3S at ISO 6400. At ISO 12800, the only way to beat the current D3S at ISO 6400 will be to use a yet-larger sensor.

For some reason, these hard limits reassure me. I like limits.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-05, 12:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
PB PM: you have a D300, a good camera of course, but do you plan to "go full frame" sometime?
Yes, I've come to realize that DX, despite the "extra reach", just isn't cutting it, even with the current generation sensors high ISO noise performance. The performance is good, but not for someone who is looking to go "pro" over the next few years, and shoots at ISO1600+ on a regular basis. I'm fully prepared to buy the D700 replacement at the end of the year as a result, even if the price is $3000. I'll have to make one adjustment to my lens lineup, since half of my glass is DX at this point. I would need to add the 16-35mm F4 VR or 14-24mm F2.8G, although I'm leaning towards the former because it can take filers.
  quote
GSpotter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A small town near Wolfsburg, Germany
 
2011-02-05, 13:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
I would need to add the 16-35mm F4 VR or 14-24mm F2.8G, although I'm leaning towards the former because it can take filers.
It also has a more versatile range. The 14-24 is really a specialized super wide angle zoom. I sometimes use my 16-35 as a walkaround lens, when I expect more wideangle subjects.

Regarding the D700 and its successors: I bought the D700 rather late (I expected / hoped for a D700s last spring). But I'm still very happy with this 'old' camera. I think it's the first DSLR where I have the feeling it will be "good enough" for quite some time.

I also do not understand this megapixel race anymore. I just recently had two pictures printed on a 50x75cm canvas (20x30"). I cropped the original picture to about 7.5 megapixel and I think the outcome looks great (see my computer setup pic).

To really get an advantage from these ever increasing megapixels, you have to use the best glass (which will dwarf the costs of the body) and preferrably a sturdy tripod etc. - and you will only see the differences in mega prints...

My photos @ flickr
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -- Benjamin Franklin
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-05, 13:35

Yeah, I think the D700 would be good enough too, but at this stage getting the D700 is hard to get, most places are running low on stock, or have long back-order lists, either that or they are still charging MSRP ($2499 in Canada). I figure that by Christmas this year the D800 or whatever it is still have slipped down a little from release price ($50-100), and I might get a discount on the 16-35mm F4 if I get them together with holiday rebates.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-05, 16:10

I'm a nit-picky sort. Because I'm not fluent in all the lingo, I can get bogged down trying to describe visible differences or understand their optical causes, but they're certainly visible even in smaller prints. Being able to tell whether something is both detailed and sharp is a bit of a curse, because I'm often not capable of making things sharp enough

Printing on canvass makes a great cheat for obscuring the ultimate resolution just a bit - behind the texture of the canvass itself. If the picture looks good, people aren't going to critique the ultimate level of detail - likely still a lot higher than what they're used to looking at on their HDTV sets. Where I work there's a public gallery decorated with medium size color photographs on canvass (about 24"-30" wide). When you get close to them you can see detail break up just about in step with the weave of the fabric.

Is it too much to ask to be able to shoot like PJ and get detail like an 8x10 portraitist?

I hope you guys have huge success (and me too) and in a few years we're all debating whether 645 is enough, or 6x7 is needed to really get the job done.

For now, I say everyone should go for the D800 (or whatever it's called) as soon as it's announced and then post extensively about your experience with it so I can make a better informed decision...

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2011-02-05 at 16:23.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-06, 11:55

A good read:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es..._cameras.shtml

Sensor size and lenses matter more, something we've been circling around quite a bit. Interesting how Canon's 1.6 and FF sensors produce such good results despite not testing very well?

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-02-06, 16:40

It is a good read (thanks for linking), but the DxOMark Sensor score is given too much weight by the author. In practice, with the various sensor technologies and sizes available, it's impossible to meaningfully sum up sensor performance in one number. The real value of the DxOMark website lies in its comprehensive information, not its arbitrarily-weighted single-number scores.

Consider for example that DxOMark ranks the Nikon D7000 as a better landscape camera than the 40-megapixel medium-format Pentax 645D. Which do you think a typical landscape photographer would prefer?

Pentax gets revenge though: the 645D is ranked above the EOS 1D Mark III for sports.

DxOMark ignores the advantages offered by high pixel counts and fast sensor readouts, among many other sensor-related and non-sensor-related factors that should influence one's choice of camera. That's one reason why Canon cameras don't fare as well as you might expect. They've long had market-leading pixel counts, fast readouts in many models, and low noise at high ISOs; but their sensors have lagged behind in base-ISO dynamic range and hue resolution (the latter producing the "Canon skin tones" that many people like, particularly in low-Kelvin light).

Furthermore, although a camera's maximum dynamic range strongly affects its DxOMark Sensor score, the dynamic range measurement used by DxOMark isn't entirely useful. That's because it's the engineering definition of dynamic range, i.e. using a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 1 as the lower cut-off point. That is too low for most photographic purposes, since we don't like our images to be almost entirely swamped by noise.

DxOMark rate the D7000 better than the 645D for landscape because the D7000 has a higher maximum engineering dynamic range (13.87 stops versus 12.55 stops when normalised to 8 megapixels). But pull up the "Full SNR" curves (not available in comparison mode) for each of the cameras to see a different story.

Consider a common landscape scene with a subject brightness range of 7 stops. Adjusting slightly for typical lens flare, the important shadows of this subject will be recorded at 1% of pixel saturation, in an "exposed to the right" file. Which camera at base ISO produces more noise at 1% saturation? Turns out the 645D has a signal-to-noise ratio about 2 dB greater, after normalisation for its greater pixel count, so it produces less noise in the shadows. This runs counter to DxOMark's dynamic range measurement of the two cameras, since that measurement is based on a uselessly low signal-to-noise ratio (for landscape photography; for reading number plates in a crime lab, a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 1 may be all that's required!).

In the mid tones, where the interesting colour often occurs in landscape photos, the 645D is about 3 dB better than the D7000, i.e a full "stop" better, and that's before mapping the raw file to a working colour space during raw conversion. Doing that — which is obviously essential to view and use the raw file — gives the 645D a further advantage in chroma noise performance, because it uses stronger colour filters in the Bayer matrix than the D7000 (as seen in the Color Sensitivity graphs). So if you're yanking curves and saturation controls to bring out vivid natural colours, as traditional landscapers usually do, the 645D has a strong advantage over the D7000. (This shouldn't surprise anyone: I'm just using it to remind ourselves why the DxOMark landscape score isn't terribly useful for doing what its name suggests.)

In short, DxO Labs provide good information, but their summary figures of merit are almost useless. I therefore question the validity of any analysis that uses those figures of merit, as Peter van den Hamer's does. It's still a thought-provoking read, and van den Hamer doesn't only rely on the DxOMark Sensor score, of course.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2011-02-06, 22:17

With all the different variables and subtle influences on final sensor performance, and different strengths and weaknesses in various sensors, is not the "eye of the beholder" really the final judge? The science is fascinating, and developing quickly. I am glad that it is, and it is very worthy of interesting discussion. At the same time, I find it reassuring that there is no one right scientific answer to which is the single "best". When science meets art there should be plenty of room for many "bests". It is nice to think that different sensors might capture the same scene in different ways. That's the way it always was with film. It should be the same for digital.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.

Last edited by Chinney : 2011-02-07 at 18:01.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-07, 09:38

The author does suggest a lot of the "yeah, that's interesting but..." type points in his footnotes. Like, all things being equal, larger sensors are better.

One of the fascinating bits about photography is it's still just possible to grasp almost the whole history in a direct way, and not just digital either, everything but the very earliest experiments. The collectors, curators, manufacturers, innovators, etc... even the junk bins of a small camera shop. Basically the whole popular history. People are still alive with direct ties to the craft as it existed 100 years ago, and you can own pieces of it at reasonable costs.

For 35mm photography this gets especially intriguing because its whole history is contained in a contemporary period, and because for me journalism and propaganda first piqued my interest - a field where 35mm has been dominant. It's a bit like what's old is new again. What's the biggest (best quality and most versatile) portable/reportage format? For a long-long time that was 35mm, but you used bigger if you wanted serious fine art - medium format in the field and 8x10 in the studio.

A part of me expects a little change as smaller sensors seem able to match slightly larger film formats in final print output. I'd be happy if I never had to get a camera bigger than 35mm, but I still can't wait to play with the Hassleblads next year...

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-07, 14:19

Canon just released the T3i and T3, both of which are nothing special. T3i = T2i / mini 60D, and the T3 = Xsi. I was surprised to see that the T3 is still using the old 12MP sensor, keeping it lower resolution than the D3100, it's closest competitor. I guess Canon felt the 15MP senor was just a write off and better left in the sensor graveyard.
  quote
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-07, 14:22

Typical, right after I bought a T2i. Still, a quick once-over doesn't reveal anything really worth upgrading for. I think I'll probably be happy with the T2i for a long time.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-07, 14:25

Yup, other than the swivel screen and a slightly improved hand grip the T3i is a T2i, your not missing anything, unless they have tweaked the sensor to improve noise performance (unlikely).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-09, 13:33

PB PM, don't you have one of the smaller Canon bodies to go with your Nikon's? What do you think of it, handling etc? They look like nice tidy cams to me.

On another note, Sony is hyping the crap out of soon to be released A77.

Who reads Japanese? There's mention of an APS HD sensor, and claims of 100,000+ ISOs

http://www.sony.jp/dslr/info2/20110209.html

Does anyone else think a transluscent DSLR body would be kind of cool? (with the light path appropriately blacked out of course)

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-11, 13:10

Just a quick note. I checked out a (used) D700 for $1,600 today...
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-11, 14:03

I did have a sample T2i for a while last Spring. I found it to be a nice little camera, but because I was limited to the 18-55mm IS kit lens, and had no interest in buying into two lens systems, I did not keep it after the sample period was over. I replaced it with the D3100 in November, which may have fewer external controls and lower resolution, but I it like much better overall. AF of the D3100 is far superior to that of the T2i, IMO. Of course the T2i has many advantages over the D3100, thanks to having more external controls and features, but I think you'd better off comparing the D3100 to the new T3/1100D.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-02-11, 14:57

$1600 is a good price, but not yet an unmissable bargain, is it? The price definitely has room to fall farther, depending on what Nikon release in the next few months.

Consider that the full-frame Canon 5D often sells for around 800 euros in Paris. The D700 is more capable, of course, but it's not "twice" as capable (a lightly-used D700 can fetch 1600 euros in Paris, though I've seen legitimate sales as low as 1350 euros — albeit for grubby bodies with over 60,000 shutter activations).

I'm still tempted to buy a D700 and ignore any successor, whether it arrives sooner or later, until its price falls 20% when the early adopters have had their fill (may take many months with the pent-up demand). And if I really like the D700, just ignore the successor entirely.

But my urge to get the D700 is tempered by the sobering prices that the D300 and D300S sell for today, post-D7000. E.g:

750 euros (scroll down)

625 euros (50,000 clicks, but still…)

650 euros (42,000 clicks)

900 euros (just 2,800 clicks, with MB-D10 and two batteries)

I paid 1300 euros for a new D300S a year ago… I've got some fine photographs from it, and it's a joy to use, but the sensor ultimately disappoints.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-11, 15:29

Yeah the D300(s) took a real hit after the release of the D7000. I thought about trading my D300 in towards a D700 a few months ago, but realized that it just wasn't worth it. I'd rather still have a tough DX body, with decent image quality to act as a backup once I have the D700 replacement. The camera that knocks my socks off is the D200, I still see them selling for $500-$650 on eBay, some of which are heavily used. Of course, eBay prices can be a little higher than from retailers that sell used bodies, I still see D300s (not s) going for $800-900.

Sometimes I wonder how on earth I thought it was a bargain when I got one of the last new D300's two years ago for $1499! Of course, two years ago the D300 was considered one of the best crop sensor cameras on the market, before the 7D came out.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-12, 06:10

The D300s really was just a slight feature bump on the D300. While the 12MP sensor was top of the class when the earlier D300 came out, even with the D90, it was getting old by the time we saw the 300s. Still good, though you can see how prices would fall far more quickly for the later model. I can still pretty easily get 80% of my purchase price on the D300, but I didn't buy new. If I had, the hit would be over 50% right now. The problem is, what to buy to replace it? D7000 is nice, but not full frame. And ALL the full frame cameras are rocking OLD sensors.

The super inflated EU/UK MSRPs seem to affect relative resale more dramatically on Dorian's side of the Atlantic. Over here people are still asking rather high prices (relative to MSRP) on their D700/300/300s kit. Example, lots of people still ask 2000 for a used D700, when it can be had new for 2200+tax.

Here's another wrench. The Fuji Guys think there may be an S6 in the fall, or they're just having a little fun... Most people don't care anymore but way back when Fuji did have some innovative sensor technology. In Japan, they even sold a medium format back (645) with it. A full frame F mount Fuji could be very cool. Of course and interchangeable lens X100 might be even cooler

If I can get away with selling my D300 plus lens to just about make the cost of a D700, I might consider it. I'd need a standard zoom, a perfect reason to get 24-70, which is the must have lens for the F mount.

.........................................
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2011-02-12, 09:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
I saw some large prints from the SD1 at the Salon de la Photo in Paris, back in November. (They were extremely impressive.) So at the very least the SD1 isn't vapourware.
Yes. It's not vapour, but it is still likely to be late. Also, finding samples online is tough. There are a lot of supposed links to pics, but few actually turn out to be from the prototypes. Sigma has just released another sample (PDF only), as noted by Rytterfalk: http://www.rytterfalk.com/. But just one image? Dribs and drabs indeed.

Incidentally, Rytterfalk is asking for donations to that he can devote himself full time to testing the SD1 when it comes out. Funny guy.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-12, 11:55

Thanks for the link Chinney. Other stuff we see on the site include plans for more OS updates of Sigma lenses. Stabilization is a good thing. While, I'm not too interested in a Sigma DSLR, I would be in a Sigma EVF with interchangeable lenses... you guys can feel free to send me cheques and I'll test any future system they make.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-14, 17:47

I was doing some thinking, and reading today and realized that the D700 is the perfect camera for me, even with the replacement coming soon. The price is right, and I don't need more megapixels or video for my style of shooting. The D700 also uses the accessories I already have (spare batteries, cable release, MB-D10 battery grip), which is another plus, and would have been a big expense if I had gone for the replacement.

So today I traded my D300 in for a brand new D700! Over the next few months I'll be selling off my DX glass (I'll be posting it in the Nova Bazzar before eBay). So if anyone is interested in some used, but well treated DX glass (Tokina 12-24mm, Nikon 35mm F1.8G, and Nikon 85mm F3.5G VR Micro) let me know!
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2011-02-14, 18:14

Exciting news PB. Enjoy your new camera!
  quote
dmegatool
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home
 
2011-02-15, 12:57

PM'ed you about the 35mm...
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-15, 13:04

Before you give away that 35mm, test it out on the D700. It may prove acceptable even on full-frame. It gets dark corners stopped down, but cropped to 5:4 I think you won't see the corners. That, and the full frame alternative is going to cost you almost 1000% more.

Do share some deets. Did you buy new or used? How much and from whom?

.........................................
  quote
dmegatool
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home
 
2011-02-15, 13:41

No I think he should sell it to dmegatool for cheap
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-02-15, 15:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Before you give away that 35mm, test it out on the D700. It may prove acceptable even on full-frame. It gets dark corners stopped down, but cropped to 5:4 I think you won't see the corners. That, and the full frame alternative is going to cost you almost 1000% more.

Do share some deets. Did you buy new or used? How much and from whom?
I have tested the 35mm on the D700, the corners are heavily vignetted, and even the not so extreme parts of the corners are soft. With that being the case I don't see much sense in keeping it, although I will be testing it more today. I'll be getting the Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR within a few months, so that focal range will be covered regardless. I have the 50mm F1.8D, which is more practical for FX, so I have a normal fast lens anyway.

As I said in my earlier post, the D700 is brand new. I bought it from a local dealer because I had a gift certificate from Christmas, so I got the D700 for $2249 before tax. I didn't actually pay that much, between the gift cards, and trade in value I payed $1948 after HST.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-02-15, 15:27

Not bad, what did they value your D300 at?
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 3 of 114 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat rdlomas Apple Products 47 2010-02-04 09:37
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital kieran Purchasing Advice 3 2005-11-18 18:20
New Digital Camera! PowermacG5newbie Genius Bar 2 2005-05-17 23:07


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova