[jsherman999]

.


I've been shooting with my K20D + DA 15 almost exclusively for a couple weeks,
and have found that my new FF 'WA' combo - D700 + Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D (13mm
equiv on aps-c,) does not quite match up to the K20D + DA 15ltd in everyday,
outdoor walkabouts.

I'm usually shooting ISO 100-250, f/8, with no real need for fast AF (or AF of any
kind, really.) The slightly higher resolution of the K20D, plus the higher-resolving
DA 15 is really a potent combo. I'm able to see more DR and recover more highlight
details with the D700 when shooting raw, but if I expose correctly in the first place,
that advantage is almost a moot point as far as the overall quality of the image
is concerned.

Now. That's that application. Where the D700 pulls away is... Basically
everything after ISO 800, maybe ISO 640. And with AF-lock speed, and AF tracking
accuracy. It's a different species of camera, performance-wise - as you'd
expect at this price. (It had better be. )

If anyone else has a D700, please post pics and thoughts on it's strengths and
weaknesses, and if anyone is thinking of saving up and getting one, let me know
if there's anything I can try or answer for you with respect to a K20D (or D90)
comparison.

To start - one reason why the D700 + Nikkor 20 2.8 may ot see much outdoor,
bright sunshine WA use:



Yucky flare response and a drop in contrast when flaring. Since it's FF, I
have to use a conservative, wide hood, so I can't protect the front element
as much as I could if I could use a deeper, aps-c-friendly hood.

Relative to the DA 15ltd, and there's no comparison - I can shoot straight
into the sun, or at an angle, and really have to look for any hotspots. The scene
will clip because of exposure if I'm shooting directly into the sun, but at an angle
I see relatively little loss of contrast with the DA 15 in sun-shooting.

Now - here's why I might be using the D700 + 20 2.8 for indoor WA uses more
often...

On left, ISO 400, on right, ISO 6400:






Slight crops, full-sized:






Note that in this example the light through the window was changing
rapidly as the sun moved quickly at a low angle - that's why there's more actual
shadow in the later shot, but this is meant to compare relative noise, which
I think can be seen clearly.

I did this quickly while on a call at home, so I didn't have time for a controlled
experiment that included my K20D, but I may do something like that coming up
here if anyone's interested.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 03-01-2010 at 07:59 PM.

[jonlee]

Glad to hear the DA 15 is holding its own and more. Out of all my limited (21, 35, and 70), my 15 sees the least amount of usage - I've just been enjoying my other limiteds more.

Never owned the 20mm f2.8 on the Nikon side. Both the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 and 14-24 f2.8 are more highly regarded in terms of image quality. It's somewhat odd that the perception of a zoom is more highly regarded than primes. Not to say the Nikon's 14, 16, 20, and 24 primes are bad, but Nikon's 2 wide angle zooms are fantastic. The newly released 16-35 F4 VR may join that list, as well. Of course, the 20mm has a nice, small form factor, and can be picked up from $300-500, so it has other advantages over the larger and more expensive zooms.

[alexeyga]

Jay, thanks for the input...

I was considering the 20mm as well, but most feedback I've got on the web about that lens suggested to stay away... I'd be curious to try the 18mm AF-D on FF, seems to have much better reputation, but these go for over 600$ used if i'm not mistaken.... Better yet, the 17-35 if size doesn't matter...

On a side-note, I had a major attack of nostalgia Tonight.... picked up my old, now my g/f's K100ds for a time-lapse project at work... damn... that thing is so light.... half the size of my current D300s... 1000 times slower in every aspect, but who cares, I had so much fun with it....

[B Grace]

I used my AF20/2.8D on my D40x (30mm equivalent) for a good part of this past Saturday morning shooting in a rather dark museum. It's a great lens but it's current configuration dates back to the mid-'80s with the D-chip update during the '90s, and its formula dates back to the Ai era. It's by no means a new lens design.

It's encouraging to see Nikon release their new 24mm prime. It's discouraging to see it's such a large aperture lens and therefore so expensive.

[jsherman999]

Glad to hear the DA 15 is holding its own and more. Out of all my limited (21, 35, and 70), my 15 sees the least amount of usage - I've just been enjoying my other limiteds more.

Never owned the 20mm f2.8 on the Nikon side. Both the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 and 14-24 f2.8 are more highly regarded in terms of image quality. It's somewhat odd that the perception of a zoom is more highly regarded than primes. Not to say the Nikon's 14, 16, 20, and 24 primes are bad, but Nikon's 2 wide angle zooms are fantastic. The newly released 16-35 F4 VR may join that list, as well. Of course, the 20mm has a nice, small form factor, and can be picked up from $300-500, so it has other advantages over the larger and more expensive zooms.

.

I've owned the Nikon 24 2.8 and 28 2.8, and they were pretty dismal, at least the
copies I had. This 20 2.8 is actually pretty sharp - very sharp in the center. Flare
is not good, and it's not as contrasty as my DA's, but it's very small and was
pretty cheap ($320 with box/caps, mint.) I still think in terms of aps-c (DX), so
I consider it a small, 13mm f/2.8 prime.

The new 16-35 f/4 is $1200, the 17-35 2.8 is $1600, and the 14-24 2.8 is $1700.
Maybe someday I'll spring for one of those, but frankly I'm pretty happy for what
the 20 2.8 brings me right now. If I'm going to be using it for quick shots
indoors, the smaller the better.

f/2.8, ISO 1600:

.

I'm pretty excited about the coming (someday) Tokina 16-28 2.8, though. That's
the FF WA zoom I'll probably end up with.



.

[jsherman999]

Jay, thanks for the input...

I was considering the 20mm as well, but most feedback I've got on the web about that lens suggested to stay away... I'd be curious to try the 18mm AF-D on FF, seems to have much better reputation, but these go for over 600$ used if i'm not mistaken.... Better yet, the 17-35 if size doesn't matter...

On a side-note, I had a major attack of nostalgia Tonight.... picked up my old, now my g/f's K100ds for a time-lapse project at work... damn... that thing is so light.... half the size of my current D300s... 1000 times slower in every aspect, but who cares, I had so much fun with it....

I still love my K100DS, and really kick myself for selling it. I'm under no illusions
about it's relative performance, but I'm also appreciative of what it does
bring - small, SR body that does exceptionally well up to ISO 800 and pretty well
past that. That's the camera that stuck me on Pentax.

I used my AF20/2.8D on my D40x (30mm equivalent) for a good part of this past Saturday morning shooting in a rather dark museum. It's a great lens but it's current configuration dates back to the mid-'80s with the D-chip update during the '90s, and its formula dates back to the Ai era. It's by no means a new lens design.

I shoot Takumars. I know 'old' designs have limitations, but they also have
value and often are superb optics. (the Nikon 20 2.8 is only average overall, but
has some very appealing aspects to it also (center sharpness wide open, size,
price.)

It's encouraging to see Nikon release their new 24mm prime. It's discouraging to see it's such a large aperture lens and therefore so expensive.

Big, expensive.... Probably pretty good. I'll pass, though.



.

[edl]

Hey Jay,

I've had my D700 since August/September last year. I think most of the strengths people claim it has are indeed true - AF accuracy, tracking, excellent handling, dynamic range and IQ. I would also mention that the meter is very accurate, and the files are easy to PP. The amount of highlight recovery possible in RAW is amazing.

Perhaps the only weakness I can spot is that Nikon hasn't really developed the "semi-affordable enthusiast" FF lens line like Canon has. But, every Nikon lens I've bought is well calibrated and reliable, which some Canon users seem to complain about.

For WA options, you should check out the 16-35/4. I just got mines tonight so I don't have anything worthwhile to show, but it is sharp all over at F/4, has very little vignetting, and balances well. Needless to say, my 18-35/3.5-4.5 is going on the market very soon...

I also considered primes, but the 17-35/2.8 is considered by many to be better than any of the primes in that range - and the 16-35 is looking better than the 17-35, provided you don't use it at 2.8


Regarding old lenses - I have a pre-AI 24/2.8 on my D40 and I've used the AI 24/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 on my D700. You gotta love the ability to program those old lenses in I'll freely admit I don't MF much at all these days, but I applaud Nikon for allowing the D300+ users to use all those old Nikkors and have metering.

Edmund

[Samsungian]

When I added D700 to my kit it was to drive their 14-24mm 2.8 I put on same receipt.
I figured with all the great press 14-24mm 2.8 got then that one lens would allow me to do without all the other options in 14-24mm range.
I also added 70-300mm VRII before the nikon price spike in early 2009.
The cheapie VR zoom and the Crystal Nanocoat ultrawide zoom are both exceptional lenses.

Its nice Nikon D700 allows for backwards compatibility but you should try some of their newly designed for digital lenses at a local shop.

You might read up on the new 16-35mm f4 VR, not everyone is loving the soft corners.
I wouldn't trade my 14-24mm 2.8 for it.

My 14-24mm is still boldly marked "Made In Japan"
I assume the 16-35mm VR is "Made in Thailand"
Not that Thailand is a bad thing, my 70-300mm VR is Thailand, and its an amazing cheapo lens

At least with Nikon, gear made outside of "Japan" is sold at a better price

[rustynail925]

We all know the the D90 has better high iso against the K20D but wows the D90 holding against the K20D in base iso? like outside landscapes

[edl]

When I added D700 to my kit it was to drive their 14-24mm 2.8 I put on same receipt.
I figured with all the great press 14-24mm 2.8 got then that one lens would allow me to do without all the other options in 14-24mm range.
I also added 70-300mm VRII before the nikon price spike in early 2009.
The cheapie VR zoom and the Crystal Nanocoat ultrawide zoom are both exceptional lenses.

Its nice Nikon D700 allows for backwards compatibility but you should try some of their newly designed for digital lenses at a local shop.

You might read up on the new 16-35mm f4 VR, not everyone is loving the soft corners.
I wouldn't trade my 14-24mm 2.8 for it.

My 14-24mm is still boldly marked "Made In Japan"
I assume the 16-35mm VR is "Made in Thailand"
Not that Thailand is a bad thing, my 70-300mm VR is Thailand, and its an amazing cheapo lens

At least with Nikon, gear made outside of "Japan" is sold at a better price

I don't own the 14-24, but from the examples I've seen it's clearly the best lens in that focal range, period.

Re: soft corners - some examples look soft because the user's focus point puts the objects in the corner outside of what appears to be in focus.

At 16mm and F/4 - focused at 4 feet - 2.6' to 9.2' appears in focus.
At 16mm and F/4 - focused at 8 feet - 3.75' to infinity appears in focus.

It's easy to get something closer than 30" to you when you're using a UWA. Especially since we're all shooting indoors nowadays thanks to the weather.

The 16-35 doesn't compete or compare to the 14-24. It's 30% cheaper and F4. However the build quality is much better than the 70-300 VR, its nano-coated, and it's made in JAPAN (at least my copy is). As I said earlier, its definitely better than the 17-35 if you don't need 2.8.

I agree otherwise, new Nikon glass is fantastic and worth a test drive. I found myself with way too much old glass in Pentax days. They offer good performance for the money, and can be fun to use...but if you can afford the new glass, I'd go with that.

[SuperAkuma]

We all know the the D90 has better high iso against the K20D but wows the D90 holding against the K20D in base iso? like outside landscapes

I would not say the d90 is better at high iso compared to the k20d. It does have a little nit less noise but not as much detail as the k20d. It just depends on what you want.

At low iso I think they are equal. I did not see any difference between the two when I had both. I think the k20d would have a slight advantage because it has a higher res.

[rustynail925]

Thanks for that SuperAkuma..
What about the focusing in a very lowlight between the 2
and What are the pros and cons of having a D90 against the K20D

[SuperAkuma]

Thanks for that SuperAkuma..
What about the focusing in a very lowlight between the 2
and What are the pros and cons of having a D90 against the K20D

The AF system on the D90 in low light is A LOT faster than the K20D. Heck even the 5 years old D70s locks on faster in low light compared to the K20D. That is the main reason why I switched to Nikon. At first I bought the Nikon D70s mainly for strobes(ability to sync the flash up to 1/2000 sec). I shot an event in very low light and had to use external flash to light the area. I tried to shoot with the K20D w/DA 50-135mm and it had a really hard time trying to lock on focus. So I switched to the D70 with a crappy Tamron 70-300mm lens and it was able to lock on focus with no problem and finished the gig with the Nikon.

I've heard the K-7 is able to focus a lot faster in low light but I have not tried to tested the K-7 before.

As far as AF goes, Nikon is just better.

[rustynail925]

You mean the nikon can sync flash up to 1/2000? How fast can Pentax go w/ synch flash?

[SuperAkuma]

Sorry I do not want to high jack this thread. I would love to carry on th conversation but it would be rude if we do it here. Fill free to pm me or make anothertjread about it.