I've totally lost interest, and it's all Nikon's fault

[Jorgen Udvang]

While going through my Hanoi photos, I've found a lot of them not usable in large formats for different reasons:

- Noise (too high ISO)
- Motion blur (too long shutter speed)
- Not in focus (too slow focusing speed)
- No photo (too much rain)

Until recently, I would find great pleasure in trying to figure out what combination of camera bodies and lenses would solve those problems, a process almost as much fun as taking photos (ok, not quite, but still, a very valuable waste of time).

Now, Nikon has destroyed it all With the launch of the D700, one camera (plus a couple of good primes) solves all the above challenges, or at least most of those that I have.

So I've mostly lost interest in cameras. There's really only one left, and one of my favourite hobbies are gone No more reading reviews at dpreview (no, no... I never really did, but I know some pixel peepers who do, so I ask them ) And not only that: Nikon expects me to pay a stack of money for the camera as well.

Not fair :lecture: There should be compensation. Nikon! Do you hear me?

Loss of hobby: $2,500
Having to buy longer telephoto lenses: at least $1,000 more

So they owe me at least $3,500, right?? Ok, ok, I'll give them some discount and accept a D700 for free

Oh well.... back to the real world

 

[Terry]

Funny,
I was having a conversation with a forum member and "dealer" earlier today about this very topic. My comment was "This is a long term camera for me as I don't see what else I could need. High ISO is solved, I don't really need more pixels for what I do, the form factor is the right size...."

That being said, the lens side of the equation isn't quite as clear. I have the 24-70 and the 70-300 but would like a couple of smaller lighter primes. This is where we can both still be gearheads because Nikon has work to do on their prime lineup.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

For me, the 135mm f/2.0 will be an obvious lens to buy with that camera, but I wish it was as sharp wide open as the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 for Sony. The Nikkor is much cheaper and much smaller though.

The real challenge is the long end. The 70-300 is an obvious choice, but with f/5.6 at 300mm, I guess it wouldn't work too well with a TC. Which means there would be a need for something longer and/or heavier (300mm f/4 or the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 + TC) or to keep a DX body in the bag, for those occasions when 300mm on FX isn't enough.

 

[Terry]

Yes, Jorgen part of the conversation was about a 135 lens because there is a gap between 105mm and 180mm. In addition I thought about the 105mm + 180mm and a TC but the 180 + TC handheld without VR won't be easy for me unless it is really bright and I can get a fast shutter speed.

 

[Vivek]

or to keep a DX body in the bag, for those occasions when 300mm on FX isn't enough.

Jorgen, Buy a D40x/D60. High ISO performance is very good. Weighs about the same as a large TC.

May be there will be a "D90" and/or a "D10" with Sony's 14mp CCD (as in their A350)?

 

[Tim]

Jorgen,

Need a challenge? join us over in the small sensor forum. These new digicams struggle to give good results over ISO 200, there are lots of challenges there, eeking out the best results from this or that compact, it should keep you occupied now that your DSLR is sorted.

Tim

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen, Buy a D40x/D60. High ISO performance is very good. Weighs about the same as a large TC.

May be there will be a "D90" and/or a "D10" with Sony's 14mp CCD (as in their A350)?

I have the D80 (and an S3). Same sensor as the D60. My challenge is that I take too many photos where there's not enough light. If there's a D90, it will hopefully have the D300 sensor, but still, the D700 will be better.

The S5 or the D300 would bring me a few steps further (and there's still an S5 waiting for me), but the knowledge that the D700 exists, particularly when I see that some of my photos could have been sales objects with better technical quality (less noise or blur), will always nag me I'm afraid.

I was considering a Pentax K200D for a while. Same sensor again, but in-body anti-shake in combination with fast primes is tempting. The downside is that the body plus the lenses that I want/need (77/1.8, 31/1.8 and the not yet released 15mm) would cost almost the same as a D700 anyway, and anti-shake doesn't stop the subject from moving. Olympus obviously has the same problem, and very few fast primes, at least at the moment.

Then there's the dynamic range.... so we're back to the D700 again, aren't we?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen,

Need a challenge? join us over in the small sensor forum. These new digicams struggle to give good results over ISO 200, there are lots of challenges there, eeking out the best results from this or that compact, it should keep you occupied now that your DSLR is sorted.

Tim

I will.... later, after the Nikon P6000 is released

 

[jonoslack]

don't worry Jorgen. I've been there so many times before. There will soon be something else!

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

I was considering a Pentax K200D for a while. Same sensor again, but in-body anti-shake in combination with fast primes is tempting. The downside is that the body plus the lenses that I want/need (77/1.8, 31/1.8 and the not yet released 15mm) would cost almost the same as a D700 anyway, and anti-shake doesn't stop the subject from moving. Olympus obviously has the same problem, and very few fast primes, at least at the moment.

Then there's the dynamic range.... so we're back to the D700 again, aren't we?

Jorgen, resistance to the D700 is futile. Even as you continue this debate, a D700 with "Jorgen Udvang" engraved on the inner magnesium alloy frame is slowly making its way along the production line in Sendai.

 

[eekimel]

The real challenge is the long end. The 70-300 is an obvious choice, but with f/5.6 at 300mm, I guess it wouldn't work too well with a TC. Which means there would be a need for something longer and/or heavier (300mm f/4 or the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 + TC) or to keep a DX body in the bag, for those occasions when 300mm on FX isn't enough.

I personally prefer an older 300 4.5 EDIF. To me, there's virtually no difference compared to my 300 F4 AF (older style) and it's significantly smaller and lighter. (I have both because the F4AF replaced a 4.5 EDIF that was stolen back in 1987 and I picked up a used 4.5 EDIF back in 2003).

 

[Bob]

I still prefer the D3,
It seems smaller than the D700 with vertical grip.
I have become a big fan of the vertical grip as my hands/wrists/arms are not as flexible as they once were.
-bob

 

[vieri]

I still prefer the D3,
It seems smaller than the D700 with vertical grip.
I have become a big fan of the vertical grip as my hands/wrists/arms are not as flexible as they once were.
-bob

It is indeed, according to published side-by-side pics - as you, I do prefer the D3 form factor, it suits my shooting style perfectly and will not change my D3 for a D700; D3 + D300 is my perfect solution for DSLR. For street & personal stuff, oh well, there is the Leica Ms for that

 

[Vivek]

I have the D80 (and an S3). Same sensor as the D60. My challenge is that I take too many photos where there's not enough light.

I know that you have the D80. I had one as well (now it is D80-IR). Terrible noise even at its base ISO.

I can comfortably use the D40x at ISO1600.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I know that you have the D80. I had one as well (now it is D80-IR). Terrible noise even at its base ISO.

I can comfortably use the D40x at ISO1600.

hmmm... I hear what you're saying...

Actually, the noise from the E-1 at ISO 800 was easier to live with than that from the D80 It's a nice camera, and it was dirt cheap, but...

 

[ddk]

Funny,
I was having a conversation with a forum member and "dealer" earlier today about this very topic. My comment was "This is a long term camera for me as I don't see what else I could need. High ISO is solved, I don't really need more pixels for what I do, the form factor is the right size...."

That being said, the lens side of the equation isn't quite as clear. I have the 24-70 and the 70-300 but would like a couple of smaller lighter primes. This is where we can both still be gearheads because Nikon has work to do on their prime lineup.

Fortunately Zeiss has taken care of that!

 

[jonoslack]

Fortunately Zeiss has taken care of that!

Don't forget voigtlander - the lovely 58mm f1.4 is perfect on the D3 (and will be on the D700 too).

 

[ddk]

Don't forget voigtlander - the lovely 58mm f1.4 is perfect on the D3 (and will be on the D700 too).

That's a pretty good lens for the price too, but I prefer that fl for aps sized sensors, 85mm is my favorite portrait length; for FX,/FF I still prefer a 50mm lens. But like you I seem to favor wider lenses in my work, 90% of what I shoot is between 14mm & 35mm, really love that Zeiss glass (including Hassy & Contax) for their rendering and their so called faults. I had the 14-24 too but didn't like it much for what I shoot, never cared for any Nikon zooms I guess. But there are a few older Nikkors that I've cherished and still use.

Love your work with the 25mm ZF, 14-24's not going to give you that look!

 

[jonoslack]

That's a pretty good lens for the price too, but I prefer that fl for aps sized sensors, 85mm is my favorite portrait length; for FX,/FF I still prefer a 50mm lens. But like you I seem to favor wider lenses in my work, 90% of what I shoot is between 14mm & 35mm, really love that Zeiss glass (including Hassy & Contax) for their rendering and their so called faults. I had the 14-24 too but didn't like it much for what I shoot, never cared for any Nikon zooms I guess. But there are a few older Nikkors that I've cherished and still use.

Love your work with the 25mm ZF, 14-24's not going to give you that look!

HI There David
- I do have the 14-24, and you're right, it doesn't give the 'look' . . . doesn't give the distortion or the vignetting or the soft corners of the ZF 25 either:ROTFL:

I seem to have 8 24mm lenses :wtf: I did an interesting comparison, and of the slr lenses, the Zuiko 7-14 (14-28) seemed to give the best performance, but nothing compared with the nice Zeiss M25 biogon (IMHO of course).

But I do agree about the ZF - it does have faults, but it also has charms, and I'll be keeping and using it.

 

[ddk]

Hi Jono,

HI There David
- I do have the 14-24, and you're right, it doesn't give the 'look' . . . doesn't give the distortion or the vignetting or the soft corners of the ZF 25 either:ROTFL:

I know the Zeiss even saves you time in post recreating all that good stuff! LOL, but I'm serious.

I seem to have 8 24mm lenses :wtf: I did an interesting comparison, and of the slr lenses, the Zuiko 7-14 (14-28) seemed to give the best performance, but nothing compared with the nice Zeiss M25 biogon (IMHO of course).

I seem to have accumulated a few in the 24mm to 30mm range myself but unfortunately no direct experience with the either the Zuiko or the M25, though I have seen some exceptional work with the Oly zoom. Let's see what's in my collection, 25mm & 28mm ZF, 28/1.4 Nikkor, Hasselblad CFI 30/f3.5 with Nikon mount adapter, had the 12-24 & the 14-24 Nikkors, Sigma 12-24 and the 17-35/2.8 Nikon which I hate and almost never use. Then there are my medium format lenses in equivalent range, but that's for another thread.