It would be hard for me to give up all my M42 lenses that I love, but I did get a brief moment with Belly Up's D700... and if I was thinking of heading FF that is the direction I would go...

Good luck either way and please let us know what you get and how you are getting along with it...

Gus

[jah3]

It would be hard for me to give up all my M42 lenses that I love, but I did get a brief moment with Belly Up's D700... and if I was thinking of heading FF that is the direction I would go...

Good luck either way and please let us know what you get and how you are getting along with it...

Gus

Sure, i'll give you all some sort of notice about the future. I keep my takumar's 28/3.5, 50/1.4 and 105/2.8 for my borrowed LX.

[alexeyga]

Just out of curiosity, what lens are you thinking of? The Nikon 80-200/2.8 is old design, i never heard about a version just for APS-C?

Actually I had the 70-200/2.8 VR in mind.... I do tend to mix the numbers up...

And yes, this lens was originally designed for the APS-C sized sensor, so it vignettes quite a bit on FF cameras... Tried on both film and D3/D700 bodies...

[rparmar]

I like Pentax and was just about to buy the Pentax K-7 but i just really wanted to know the Pentax/Hoya would release an FF during the next 12 or 24 months, but seems like they totally dumped that.

They didn't dump anything. Pentax have not now nor ever promised a full frame digital camera.

[nostatic]

Right now I am close to pulling the trigger on a FF camera for extreme low light work, but it will be to add along with a Pentax body (likely swap the K20d for a K7) and some small primes.

I highly doubt that I will want to lug around a bigger/less discrete D700 or 5Dmk2 for street shooting for extended walkabouts. I was going to stay u4/3 for street but I think I prefer the look/feel of the Pentax for carry.

Now the problem is choosing between the current suspects. I think the D700 wins in the lowest light and build quality, but the 5Dmk2 feels better in my hand and I like the 24-105 lens (for the FF use it'll likely be a zoom or two along with a fast 50). Nikon right now doesn't have good zoom choices. The 24-70/2.8 is huge and doesn't have IS, and the "good" kit 24-120 isn't getting very good reviews.

Maybe I'll just see what Leica announces on 9/9

[jah3]

Actually I had the 70-200/2.8 VR in mind.... I do tend to mix the numbers up...

And yes, this lens was originally designed for the APS-C sized sensor, so it vignettes quite a bit on FF cameras... Tried on both film and D3/D700 bodies...

That lens isnt designed for APS-S censor, it is designed for 35mm, off course usable on DX.

Picture angle
34°20' - 12°20' (22°50' - 8° Nikon DX format)

The Nikon 70-200mm VR is a professional lens intended for use on film and full-frame FX cameras

[Substitute]

Well I'd definitely go for the Nikon set up, Sony is not a camera maker, I wouldn't trust them with staying around if buisness is bad.
The D700 is really good in extreme low light, then it's heavy and a bit of a problem when shooting in daylight. Canon's build quality is outrageous, but then at 5000 iso it is spectacular.
So bottom line,there's no such thing as a perfect camera, that's for sure but Sony has the most serious drawbacks according to me.
D700 by the end of September would be my bet, that is if you can wait. Best of luck and start buying lenses.
Leica S2 is another option of course, depending on your income.

---

Last edited by Substitute; 08-31-2009 at 10:17 AM.

[Ash]

All the vest in your FF endeavours - I'm sure you'll find Nikon the very best to invest in and of superior quality - only expect to pay a premium for those good VR lenses....

Nikon right now doesn't have good zoom choices. The 24-70/2.8 is huge and doesn't have IS, and the "good" kit 24-120 isn't getting very good reviews.

I dont know what to tell. Nikon have some of the best zooms in the market. ALL the zooms between 14 and 70 are extraordinary (and many of them extraordinarily expensive). They just dont have IS and they are big. Here are some

14-24 f2.8
17-35 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
28-70 f2.8
35-70 f2.8 (this is the best value, cheap and excelent)

I honestly dont know how useful is IS at short focal lengths unless you are shooting extremely static subjects.

It would be hard for me to give up all my M42 lenses that I love, but I did get a brief moment with Belly Up's D700... and if I was thinking of heading FF that is the direction I would go...

Good luck either way and please let us know what you get and how you are getting along with it...

Gus

Sir, you know you can always put your paws on it (the first ride is free but the nexts....). BTW the M42 lenses can be used on Nikon, they just wont focus to infinity and beyond

[nostatic]

I dont know what to tell. Nikon have some of the best zooms in the market. ALL the zooms between 14 and 70 are extraordinary (and many of them extraordinarily expensive). They just dont have IS and they are big. Here are some

14-24 f2.8
17-35 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
28-70 f2.8
35-70 f2.8 (this is the best value, cheap and excelent)

I honestly dont know how useful is IS at short focal lengths unless you are shooting extremely static subjects.

No doubt the 28-70/2.8 is a great lens, but as you said, big/heavy/expensive. What Nikon seems to be missing relative to Canon is slightly smaller/lighter f4 zooms that are still high quality. Not everyone likes 1kg sitting on the body when doing hand-carry. And if you are big/heavy, then there should be IS. Then again, *some* bodies have SR in the body

No free lunch...

[Lowell Goudge]

Here we are, nothing about a fullframer from Pentax and seems like it'll take years to go there, I am in a stage to sell my Pentax gear and looking at the Sony a900 / a850 or the Nikon D700 to get the FF.
I have an offer for an Sony a900 for 1999€ (last in store) and i am 99% close to take it now. I like Pentax and was just about to buy the Pentax K-7 but i just really wanted to know the Pentax/Hoya would release an FF during the next 12 or 24 months, but seems like they totally dumped that.
The choice between the D700 and A900 is bit difficult for me anyway at this moment, but as it seems now, bye bye Pentax!

I echo rparmar's comments.
This has been the common statement from pentax all along, so I can't understand how you feel pentax has just dumped full frame. To dump something implies that it once existed, but, There has never-ever been a FF pentax in the works, except in the minds of some forum members that occasionally have a case of the "IF ONLY Pentax blues".

No doubt the 28-70/2.8 is a great lens, but as you said, big/heavy/expensive. What Nikon seems to be missing relative to Canon is slightly smaller/lighter f4 zooms that are still high quality. Not everyone likes 1kg sitting on the body when doing hand-carry. And if you are big/heavy, then there should be IS. Then again, *some* bodies have SR in the body

No free lunch...

I understand your concerns with Nikon because I had them not too long ago. I think that Sony is a step up over Pentax if SR is essential. But you might not win that much on high ISO benefit, you will win on cropability and resolution. I am not sure about the canon 24-105, it is a good lens but distortions are huge (for me that is key for a lens).
I read somewhere (I think that on Thom Hogans predictions) that Nikon is next to release f4 zooms ala Canon. I dont think that they will cheap (Nikon rarely do anything cheap ), they wont probably be too light (Nikon rarely do anything ligth ) and I think that they will have VR. At any case, I wouldnt buy into a system based on non-existing lenses.

In my case, I have been surprised on how little I miss SR on body with the D700 and 24-70 zoom but I must say that I rarely push the thing to the limits of low-light and I rarely use shutter speeds bellow 1/100. I still thinking that the ratio high ISO-SR is better for the D700 but I am not sure that this thing alone worth the extra 1200 USD you have to pay. Now, the dynamic range at ISO >400-800 is just much better and if you need that there is nothing like the D700-D3

If you want the thing for low light mainly, another thing against FF is that you might find yourself dumping a lot of files because DOF was not enough and if you go f8 you wont have enough light but I am sure you know that already.

[alexfoto]

If you're making a switch, at least go for the D700...

With similar price I think is a lot better the Nikon D700 (first class AF) despite the cost of some telephoto lens are unreachable.

However the same problem is present on Sony.

[nostatic]

I understand your concerns with Nikon because I had them not too long ago. I think that Sony is a step up over Pentax if SR is essential. But you might not win that much on high ISO benefit, you will win on cropability and resolution. I am not sure about the canon 24-105, it is a good lens but distortions are huge (for me that is key for a lens).
I read somewhere (I think that on Thom Hogans predictions) that Nikon is next to release f4 zooms ala Canon. I dont think that they will cheap (Nikon rarely do anything cheap ), they wont probably be too light (Nikon rarely do anything ligth ) and I think that they will have VR. At any case, I wouldnt buy into a system based on non-existing lenses.

In my case, I have been surprised on how little I miss SR on body with the D700 and 24-70 zoom but I must say that I rarely push the thing to the limits of low-light and I rarely use shutter speeds bellow 1/100. I still thinking that the ratio high ISO-SR is better for the D700 but I am not sure that this thing alone worth the extra 1200 USD you have to pay. Now, the dynamic range at ISO >400-800 is just much better and if you need that there is nothing like the D700-D3

If you want the thing for low light mainly, another thing against FF is that you might find yourself dumping a lot of files because DOF was not enough and if you go f8 you wont have enough light but I am sure you know that already.

I can live (I think) with the shallower DOF wide open if it means getting a shot or not getting a shot. And while it may end up being a wash once you factor everything in, the reality is that during my quick and dirty "shoot-off" between the D700 just out-performed both K20d and 5Dmk2. At this point in time there is a difference with pixel density and performance.

I routinely shoot below 1/60th so SR may have spoiled me (I don't have a camera without it presently). In fact often I'm down around 1/5 of a second handheld and it is viable. It'll be interesting to see if in my case the SR is really saving my butt and in fact going to a non-IS setup will be *worse* in low light. The upside is that 6400 seems to be about the same as 1600 wrt noise and "look" on the D700.

Everything is a trade-off...