D700 on its way, finally, and at a good price

[DavidL]

It's funny, I think that maybe I'd rather see a 12 Mp A900 than a 24 Mp D700 ...

Almost agree except I'd like 16mp ish on a Sony Full Frame. It's the in body stabilisation and the Zeiss lenses that are the lure. I used Contax way back when.
I just can't bring myself to buy a D700 as my 300's are earning me money and I don't have a client base that would appreciate (Know) the difference.
David

 

[Lars]

Interesting find with the D700... I've been very happy with the finder on my F5 and D2x, especially with the high eyepoint design - works great even with large eyeglasses.

On the D700, for some incomprehensible reason :banghead: Nikon decided to mask the exit pupil of the finder much tighter, cropping off an extra 1.5 mm radius, making it more difficult to get a full view of the finder. Why Nikon did this is a mystery to me - my recollection from using D2x, as well as product photos of D3 and D3x, indicate that this is specific to the D700. Below are photos of the D700 and F5 viewfinders, with the cover glass removed. Would any D3(x) owner comment?

Hmm... Dremel vs. warranty...

 

[Lars]

It's funny, I think that maybe I'd rather see a 12 Mp A900 than a 24 Mp D700 ...

Did you ever consider the A900 + autofocus Zeiss lenses, or what made you choose the D700 ?
Was it the Nikon glass you already own, or the low-light performance of the larger pixel pitch (lower pixel amount), or ... ?

Switching to A900 would have cost me about... well, it wouldn't be enough to sell my car. Lenses, flashes, accessories. Even selling my Nikon glass, the second hand value would be less than half the price for new Zeiss glass. considering the state of the economy it also makes sense to minimize new investment at this time.

Zeiss glass might be sharp, but I really like the focus to rear-out-of-focus transition rendering of the 85/1.4D. And the 135 DC is unique to Nikon.

I like the nikon flash system.

Low-light performance is for me - at this time - much more interesting than megapixels. The reason is simple - for my high-resolution landscape work I use film, 6x9 cm, 6x17 cm, 4x5", 4x10", 8x10". 12 Mpx goes a long way for the intended use of the D700.

Also, Sony is new on to SLRs. They seem to have gotten things approximately right, but that's not enough for me to dump my Nikon gear already. Time will tell if quality holds up.

I will likely consider Sony/Zeiss again 2-3 years from now.

 

[etrigan63]

I have to agree. My work is heading towards High ISO tele and the D700/D300 combo is tough to beat.

 

[marknorton]

The D3x finder (and I assume the D3 though it is in my office) is similar to the F5 in your picture but upside down compared to your picture - the corners are more clipped at the bottom than the top.

I do think camera manufacturers ignore the eye comfort of eye-glass wearers and for those of you who don't, you will.

 

[Bob]

I think that they went down-hill since the F3HP
-bob

 

[pgmj]

Lars, go to www.memira.se and have them fix your eye-sight

I did the LASIK surgery, and had perfect vision the next morning. Amazing, really.

 

[etrigan63]

I know too many people for whom LASIK only provided a temporary solution to their vision problems and were back on glasses not long after. No thanks. No one touches my eyeballs unless it is a medical emergency. I don't complain about living with glasses ever.

 

[Lars]

I know too many people for whom LASIK only provided a temporary solution to their vision problems and were back on glasses not long after. No thanks. No one touches my eyeballs unless it is a medical emergency. I don't complain about living with glasses ever.

My view exactly - I'm OK with contact lenses and glasses for now. Lasik won't hit perfect vision on my -8 diopter eyeballs, and my eyesight will slowly get worse over the years so I'll need reading glasses anyway.

 

[Oxide Blu]

LASIK is a 5 to 7 year fix. Some people get more time from it, others less. You can only carve so much on an eyeball and then you are stuck with whatever is left over.

New technology in the last 3 or 4 years; flexible, focusing implants to correct vision near, intermediate, and distant. Bausch & Lomb has an implant lens but it causes some problems for some people. A newer implant lens invented on the peninsula (Menlo Park?) is due to be released anytime now, has passed as govt testing. Per my ophthalmologist, they are trying to get the manfring costs down.

http://www.crystalens.com/

 

[etrigan63]

Lens implants are only paid for by insurance when you are having cataract surgery. LASIK and other vision corrective procedures are considered elective surgeries (like liposuction and non-reconstructive plastic surgery) and are not covered by insurance in the US. Medical insurance here only pays for surgery if your health is threatened by not having it. They will happily pay for contacts and glasses.

I myself use glasses. I've tried contacts and they give me eye infections regardless of how many times I wash/disinfect the damned things. Gave up on them years ago. Quite content as I am.

 

[Lars]

I've reviewed my lens needs (and wallet), and it looks like I'll be shopping for a cheap normal zoom and a 50 with AF for the moment. My macro needs were resolved for now with Nikon's 5T/6T lenses. I've mentioned my interest in the Sigma 50/1.4 before, and it looks like Sigma's 28-70/2.8 zoom (about $300) might be a good value for a normal zoom.

 

[pgmj]

Is there a new Sigma 28-70? Usually the Tamron 28-75 gets better reviews (less problems with quality control?).

 

[Lars]

Is there a new Sigma 28-70? Usually the Tamron 28-75 gets better reviews (less problems with quality control?).

No, same old Sigma. Both lenses are dirt cheap, considering the specs. None is a recent design. I've seen bad reviews of both lenses.

EDIT: Apparently there are two variations of the Sigma, an older which takes 82 mm filters and a newer which takes 67 mm filters. It seems that many of the bad reviews are of the older version of the Sigma.

I have the more recent Tamron 17-50/2.8 (DX) for my D2x - while it was a great lens optically, the internal construction was quite weak with plastic (ok, "composite") in high stress points where metal would have been an obvious choice. I had to do some field repairs to it while travelling in Latin America, which kept it together for another 12 months. Never leave home without superglue.

A friend of mine has the Tamron (Sony mount but still) and it doesn't seem more rugged than my 17-50.

There is a new Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM on its way, I think it's priced at about 60% of the Nikon. Sigma really needs to deliver on quality with that one.