[stanleyk]

sonyalpharumors says there will be a hybrid FF sony next year that can take both alpha and e mount lenses and will look similar to the NEX-7.

I am also intrigued by the NEX-7 but given I am happy with the NEX-5N the extra features of the NEX-7 are not compelling for me. The EVF I will probably never use, the TriNavi is good but I actually have no problems controlling up to 10 parameters on the the NEX-5N using a combination of soft keys and touchscreen. The extra resolution - nice but I don't need it, and not willing to sacrifice the ISO performance on the NEX-5N. Also the colour cast issue on wide angle M mounts - probably won't affect me but I am considering buying more M mount lenses in the future.

Great info. Thanks!!

The one thing I've learned with the D700 is that since I started photography with film cameras, I have a very difficult time with the crop factor. Now 28mm is 28mm. My favorite focal length is 35mm. It's probably why I like the X100 and GXR so much. I haven't used the NEX cameras, but after I started using an X100 and GXR I just couldn't see the sense in a DSLR for that size sensor. But then again, I don't really use longer lenses so they made sense to me. I could pack the X100 and GXR + 2 modules in a small bag and it was lighter and easier to carry than the K5 + lenses.

Don't ask on the D700..... I have to admit though the image quality is really stunning.

[Raffwal]

Well, the 5D Mark II is now selling for around $2k.

Here in the Euro zone (until the whole fricking currency goes to the bottom of the sea), a 5D Mk II can be found for ca. 1700€, while a D700 is roughly 2k€. Still quite a lot, but not completely impossible.

(As a side track, I originally invested into Pentax for the good bang/buck ratio, but having ended up buying several bodies and lenses I actually wish I'd originally bought either of the mentioned cameras with a 2*-7*mm zoom, which would cover 99% of my shooting and be above what I have in quality. But that's just my evaluation and another story).

[Christine Tham]

(As a side track, I originally invested into Pentax for the good bang/buck ratio, but having ended up buying several bodies and lenses I actually wish I'd originally bought either of the mentioned cameras with a 2*-7*mm zoom, which would cover 99% of my shooting and be above what I have in quality. But that's just my evaluation and another story).

I am primarily a prime shooter (!) and the reason I buy Pentax is because of my Pentax prime collection.

But lately, size and weight is becoming a big issue for me. Which is why I am loving the NEX-5N and my Nikon J1 so much at the moment. And the 5N works with most of my Pentax primes so I haven't lost my investment.

To me, an FF DSLR is justified but only if it's high end. And even then I will probably swing towards the manufacturer that makes them as small and light as possible - which is likely to be Sony currently which is why as I said before I am rapidly becoming a Sony fangirl.

If Pentax releases a small, mirrorless K-mount FF camera - yes I must admit I would be interested but I don't see that happening in 2012.

[deadwolfbones]

Nikon all the way.

[stanleyk]

Nikon all the way.

I sure haven't been disappointed or as they say in marketing speak "no post purchase dissonance."

[Raffwal]

Nikon all the way.

Why? I mean the D700 is obviously a great camera, but why do YOU prefer it?

[deadwolfbones]

Superior ergonomics (my opinion), superior AF accuracy, ease of manual focus, superb high ISO ability, lovely colors, compatibility with inexpensive yet excellent manual focus Nikkors (try mounting those FD gems on a 5DmkII), impeccable build quality.

[jsherman999]

.

I was considering both these choices in late '09... I chose the D700 over the 5DII because the D700 was best-in-class regarding to two things that were very important to me - 1) AF lock speed and 2) Low-light/High ISO capability.

I shoot literally everything, but the subjects that are most important to me move around a lot in dim lighting, and I wanted immediate, always-reliable AF lock and very good noise performance.

The shot below looks 'easy', but it wasn't, the exact moment only lasted literally a second or less, and it was dimmer there than it looks - but the D700 + 50 1.8 locked immediately, and at ISO 1800 I don't even have to consider the use of noise reduction:

(Older boy had gotten hurt while running around the house and was crying - his little brother often 'consoles' him when he cries, but it only lasts a second and I never seem to have a camera when it happens - until that time )


For me, moments like that ^^ are just excruciatingly frustrating to miss due to AF hunting.

The dynamic range + DOF control at 'normal' focal lengths bring something extra to your photography:



(although the D700 & 5DII Dynamic Range is now exceeded at base ISO by the D7000/K-5)

The Nikon D3s was perhaps about the same with AF, better in low-light, but it's not really the same 'class' as the D700, it's a huge $5200 camera, and the size & price didn't appeal to me.

The 5DII had a lot of resolution and very good video capabilities, but neither of those things were important to me personally, although I completely understand how they would be important to a lot of folks. And that new $2K price is pretty sweet, I have to admit

But D700 was a no-brainer for me.

I've been eagerly anticipating the D800 for a while, but the rumoured specs are starting to maybe make me think I'll be better off sticking with the D700 for now. 36MP is just overkill for me - it represents not much of a jump in low-light capability + a slower and more cumbersome workflow, because of the huge files. If it were a $2300 body I'd probably bite, but at $3000 - $4000 (rumoured,) I don't know if it's an appealing enough upgrade over the D700... Judging by some of the scuttlebut on the Nikon fora, others may agree with me. D700 still resides in a coveted sweet spot - excellent in some very important areas, relatively affordable. We'll have to see exactly what the D800 turns out to be and how it performs though, or if we'll see a D700s appear as well (essentially a D700 body with the incredible D3s sensor.)

(And then there's the outside possibility of a Pentax FF in 2012 or 2013, throwing grease on the track... )



.

[borno]

I went the used route and am very pleased with the 1dsii (cheaper too). AF is instant (with a ring af lens) and I don't care about video or shooting at super high iso. Also doubles as a weapon.

[stanleyk]

36MP is just overkill for me - it represents not much of a jump in low-light capability + a slower and more cumbersome workflow, because of the huge files. If it were a $2300 body I'd probably bite, but at $3000 - $4000 (rumoured,) I don't know if it's an appealing enough upgrade over the D700... .

Excellent point. I can't see the benefit in 36 megapixels for someone like me. You would need much bigger cards too. That said, at some point, I'd probably really consider it at $2300.

I do wish it was smaller but it is what it is. Great shots of your children. I especially like the B/W one.

[twilight_samurai]

If you haven't already seen the thread, there's an active one in this section entitled "some full-frame shots & thoughts" where some of us who have FF cameras post example images and discuss our various camera models.

Go to a store and handle both 5DMkII and the D700 so you can feel the difference between the two and see which one you like more. I felt the D700 handled more similarly to my previous Pentax dSLR due to the front/rear dials while the Canon had ergonomics that felt alien in my hands. I also liked how there are many more focus points to choose from on the D700 and as previous posters mentioned, the AF on the D700 is extraordinary.. especially since you're coming from Pentax, you'll notice a world of difference.

So depending on what you shoot, you may value certain characteristics over others. I tend to often shoot events indoors with dim lighting so the quick & accurate AF, clean high ISO, and excellent flash system of the Nikon won me over. Sometimes I do wish that I had a few more than 12 MPs to allow more latitude in cropping, but rarely.. and maybe if I shot more print work where I'm not in charge of the final edit, then a higher MP count would be beneficial too. But for the majority of what I shoot, I am totally happy with what the D700 offers.

[yusuf]

.
I was considering both these choices in late '09... I chose the D700 over the 5DII because the D700 was best-in-class regarding to two things that were very important to me - 1) AF lock speed and 2) Low-light/High ISO capability.

How do you rate AF accuracy compared to K-5. I am in the same boat and planning to get something which offers better AF accuracy compared to k-x. I do not have personal experience with k-5 but with k-x, I do miss the shot due to AF and that's the sole reason why I am considering Nikon or Canon.

Thanks

[jsherman999]

How do you rate AF accuracy compared to K-5. I am in the same boat and planning to get something which offers better AF accuracy compared to k-x. I do not have personal experience with k-5 but with k-x, I do miss the shot due to AF and that's the sole reason why I am considering Nikon or Canon.

Thanks

I've barely played with the K-5, but the K-7 I used for a while doesn't come close to the D700's AF lock in low-light, or tracking in any light. I thin Ben (deadwolfbones) owns a K-5 + D700, he could speak about the direct comparison.

The Nikon AF subsystem is top-notch though, one of the criteria you'd put in the plus column against any other body - but you'd have to decide how important AF is to your shooting.

[B Grace]

I'm not sure on the M42. I use a MFT camera. When I first got it, I got a bunch of adapters. After awhile I found it to be a lot of trouble, but that's just me.

I have gotten a number of Nikon AI-S lenses. I like to manual focus with the D700. I am extremely happy with them. To be honest even though the camera is really too big for me, I just don't see myself using the K5 anymore. The manual focus on the D700 is so easy. I'm sure it's like that on 5D also. The couple of times I tried it out I used auto focus zoom lenses on it.

I honestly think the Nikon AI-S 28mm F2.8 maybe be one of the two or three best lenses I've ever used. I will say without hesitation that the 35mm F1.4G is the best lens I've ever used. The 85mm F1.4 is great too, but to from what I understand the 1.8 is just as good for 1/2 the price. I also got an AI-S 85mm F2.0. Now that lens is incredibly sharp at F2.0. I actually like it better than the 1.4 and it's really small too. I'm sure Canon makes lenses just as good. I was really surprised to see that Nikon still makes a few AI-S lenses. They are extremely well made and made in Japan too. Honestly unless you are doing sports or something the D700 is like using a really good old film camera it manual focuses that easily.

I too shoot both Pentax and Nikon gear. I used Nikon film gear from 2000 to 2007 and then switched to a DX digital body. It's an odd observation but I believe there is something about the older Nikkor lenses that doesn't translate well from FX to the DX crop format and I've found my medium grade Nikkor primes don't perform very well on DX in my opinion. The traditional Nikon super sharp pop just isn't there. If I could be certain I could get back to the image quality I saw on film by upgrading from my D40x to a D7000 or D300 I'd do so in an instant. As it is, the only Nikkor I shoot with that has what I think to be a Nikon image quality to it on DX is my 16-85 zoom. The only factor that stops me from buying a D700 is price. My primes and long zoom are FX so I'd be good to go otherwise.

Also, I know of the excellent reputation of the AI-S 28/2.8. My Nikkor guide books list it as having been updated from the AI version. Sadly, the AF 28/2.8 is an updated version of the E-series lens so it's not the same formula. The best lens I've used of all brands was a non-AI 105/2.5 which I had the chance to borrow with a Nikkormat FT2 shooting Reala. Two friends at work shoot with D700's (one with the 24-70/2.8) - from the images of theirs I've seen I do know what I'm missing by shooting DX format.

Finally, for everyone here I think it's important to say there are vast differences between Nikon and Pentax image quality. We tend to shoot Pentax gear for its sharp in-focus and smooth focus transitions to out-of-focus areas. Nikon lenses aren't like that at all with their super sharp, 3D-like in-focus rendering and sometimes wonky out-of-focus areas. OOF light sources can range from donuts to dots having noticeably sharp edges. Busy backgrounds such as trees can look downright terrible in shallow DOF shots. The Nikkor I've used which had the best OOF rendering was my AF-D 60/2.8 micro, of all things. I keep a set of close-up diopter filters in my camera bag - a mild close-up filter on my 50/1.4 does wonders in bringing OOF areas in close-up shots up to par with my Pentax 50/1.4.

[_quicksilver_]

Nice thread!

I have also been pondering between the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D markII. I went to a local camerastore to handle them and to me the Nikon felt more familiar. Heck, at first it took me quite a while to figure out how to switch the power on in the Canon. AF speed and the build quality was also better in the Nikon. One thing that has been keeping me away from the Nikon are the Nikon colours! Yes, the camera feels very nice but IMHO the colours seem to be very cold and especially the skin colours and the colour of the blue sky seem unnatural to my eyes. Maybe it´s something that can be easily corrected in PP, but still it´s something that annoys me.

I guess I´m just too used to the Pentax colours..