Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-31-2008, 03:24 PM   #1
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
Thought I'd Buy A D700

All eyes are on the Nikon D700, a very nicely designed camera that also happens to be full-frame. Despite largely baseless rumours, Pentax has nothing like it now or in the announced future. Though FF is not essential I'd like it for improved noise response and the brighter viewfinder, not to mention restoring the FOV of film. I care more about wide than tele.

Before jumping in to a different system I had a look at the lenses I'd need to replace: the FA43 and FA77 for portraits and general low light goodness, Vivitar Series 1 105mm for macro, DA 16-45 on the wider end for landscapes, DA 55-300mm for tele (actually I don't have the last one yet but have several other lenses I can trade for it). If I was to buy these again the cost would be £380 + £550 + £200 + £200 + £230 = £1560.

So my Pentax camera system of choice, including a K20D for £700, comes to £2260. (I do not own the K20D but better include it to be somewhat competitive with the D700.)

Looking at the Nikon side I'd have to get the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D in place of the FA43 and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the FA77. For a macro there's the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G.

The zooms situation is more difficult since I'd need to replicate my current lens FOV on full frame. On the wide end Nikon has nothing cheaper than the AF Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G, but at least here I'm gaining a stop. The AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR fits like a glove to replace the tele.

Damage? £200 + £250 + £490 + £1000 + £980 = £2920. The D700 can be had for £1560 so the system price is £4480.

Anyone see what I'd be losing here? How about image stabilisation, since only the tele zoom and the macro lenses have this feature? How about the compact size of the Limiteds and their amazing build? How about the second-to-none sharpness of the Vivi and the edge-to-edge resolution of the DA 16-45? I am sure the Nikon lenses are perfectly fine, but rather doubt they would offer any significant improvements on the Pentax lenses I'd be giving up.

All this for twice the price.

Nikon may have the camera, but their prime lenses are looking mighty long in the tooth. Many are designs much older than the Pentax counterparts. And I cannot image photography without image stabilisation. Unless Nikon get VR out of lenses and into the body where it belongs, they are unlikely to get my business. Even then they'd need to start producing lenses that go the extra mile and make me crave them, in that "must have another Limited" way.

Thought I'd buy a D700. Then I woke up to reality.

07-31-2008, 03:34 PM   #2
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,043
we shall send you to their forums, do you have a will in place ?
07-31-2008, 05:26 PM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 728
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Unless Nikon get VR out of lenses and into the body where it belongs, they are unlikely to get my business.
Im betting that's never going to happen, they make to much money putting the VR in their lenses, same as canon.
07-31-2008, 05:47 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
QuoteOriginally posted by bigben91682 Quote
Im betting that's never going to happen, they make to much money putting the VR in their lenses, same as canon.
Exactly and they have no interesting in promoting sales of used lenses in place of VR versions. SR does cost Pentax money and although we love the feature, it's tough on them when I can strap on a 40 year old screw mount and have SR.

The Nikon looks attractive but what more are you really getting? FPS is a little better, AF might be as well. FF, whatever. Not worth double the price and loosing several things as well. I'll get excited when 645D comes out.

07-31-2008, 06:30 PM   #5
Senior Member
troywhite's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 170
Nice post :-)

When I originally started reading I was going to reply with the standard "Thanks for coming, close the door on the way out" type response :-)
07-31-2008, 09:24 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 924
Your are not comparing apples to apples here...

But that said you are right about any 35mm digital setup is going to be a lot more expensive

FA43ltd is a top of the line prime and Nikon does not have an equivalent, however the nearest thing giving a comparable FOV and DOF is a new 60/2.8 with adds AFS (the nikkor SDM)

FA77 is not comparable to the Nikkor 85/1.4 in terms of FOV and DOF.
You will need a roughly 115mm f2.8 to get there.
A nikon 105/2DC or 135/2DC would be my choices to replace it.
The vivtar S1 macro would need to be replaced by a roughly 150mm macro, my choice would be the SIgma 150/2.8 it works absolutely stellar with the D3/D700 sensor.
The 16-45 is with all due respect an ordinary standard zoom, comparing it to what is probably the best standard zoom out there regardless of brand is hardly fair, the Nikkor 24-70G is a fully weathersealed f2.8 pro lens.
A comparable lens is a lens like the 24-120VR or 24-85AFS.
55-300, the only lens where you seems to be making an apples to apples comparison, so fair enough.
The D700 kit will still be quite a bit more expensive, but that is currently the price to pay for wanting a brand new pro build 35mm digital body.

35mm digital is very expensive compared to APS-C. Now there is a gain in quality, but also quite a pricetag to go with it, not to mention bulk and weight gain.

Glad to see you are staying though
07-31-2008, 10:21 PM   #7
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by bigben91682 Quote
Im betting that's never going to happen, they make to much money putting the VR in their lenses, same as canon.
Depending on the size of the image circle of their lenses, in camera anti shake may not be possible with a 35mm film sized sensor.
What's the useful size of the image circle with the various DA lenses? Has anyone here put them on a film camera to see?
I'm wondering how much bigger they are than the APS-C sensor?
Also, would an antishake device need more or less deflection with a 35mm film format sensor?
Will a 35mm camera lens cover the format plus the deflection distance without losing excessive corner sharpness or without vignetting?

08-01-2008, 12:15 AM   #8
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 7
In the Nikon lexicon, VR stands for Faginal Reconstruction?

Sounds correct; though I'm new here.
08-01-2008, 07:34 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
All eyes are on the Nikon D700, a very nicely designed camera that also happens to be full-frame. Despite largely baseless rumours, Pentax has nothing like it now or in the announced future. Though FF is not essential I'd like it for improved noise response and the brighter viewfinder, not to mention restoring the FOV of film. I care more about wide than tele.

Before jumping in to a different system I had a look at the lenses I'd need to replace: the FA43 and FA77 for portraits and general low light goodness, Vivitar Series 1 105mm for macro, DA 16-45 on the wider end for landscapes, DA 55-300mm for tele (actually I don't have the last one yet but have several other lenses I can trade for it). If I was to buy these again the cost would be £380 + £550 + £200 + £200 + £230 = £1560.

So my Pentax camera system of choice, including a K20D for £700, comes to £2260. (I do not own the K20D but better include it to be somewhat competitive with the D700.)

Looking at the Nikon side I'd have to get the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D in place of the FA43 and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the FA77. For a macro there's the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G.

The zooms situation is more difficult since I'd need to replicate my current lens FOV on full frame. On the wide end Nikon has nothing cheaper than the AF Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G, but at least here I'm gaining a stop. The AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR fits like a glove to replace the tele.

Damage? £200 + £250 + £490 + £1000 + £980 = £2920. The D700 can be had for £1560 so the system price is £4480.

Anyone see what I'd be losing here? How about image stabilisation, since only the tele zoom and the macro lenses have this feature? How about the compact size of the Limiteds and their amazing build? How about the second-to-none sharpness of the Vivi and the edge-to-edge resolution of the DA 16-45? I am sure the Nikon lenses are perfectly fine, but rather doubt they would offer any significant improvements on the Pentax lenses I'd be giving up.

All this for twice the price.

Nikon may have the camera, but their prime lenses are looking mighty long in the tooth. Many are designs much older than the Pentax counterparts. And I cannot image photography without image stabilisation. Unless Nikon get VR out of lenses and into the body where it belongs, they are unlikely to get my business. Even then they'd need to start producing lenses that go the extra mile and make me crave them, in that "must have another Limited" way.

Thought I'd buy a D700. Then I woke up to reality.

Funny, I was just in a store yesterday and I tried out the D700 outside & inside the store - impressive, but I saw immediately again the benefits of in-body SR when I tested it with a non VR lens.

I then tried it with a VR zoom, and results were better stop-wise, but not really any better than the in-body SR of my K20D. I think that Nikon VR lens was 2 grand.

Anyway, I loved the viewfinder, images looked good on a laptop they had there, but I wasn't quite as impressed as I though I'd be. I'd actually pick the D300 over the D700 at this point.
08-01-2008, 09:37 AM   #10
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
Original Poster
Duplo, you are correct. I initially wrote two comparisons, one converting focal lengths and the other not. Somehow I got a bit mixed up editing the post down to something more reasonable in length. At least in this comparison there are fast Nikon lenses to match the Limiteds, otherwise Nikon fares even poorer I think. And these changes do not significantly affect the prices or the overall conclusion.

QuoteOriginally posted by Duplo Quote
The 16-45 is with all due respect an ordinary standard zoom, comparing it to what is probably the best standard zoom out there regardless of brand is hardly fair, the Nikkor 24-70G is a fully weathersealed f2.8 pro lens. A comparable lens is a lens like the 24-120VR or 24-85AFS.
Well, there are no really comparable lenses. Though the DA16-45 is bottom of the totem pole in terms of its class, it is top of the pile in terms of quality. I disagree that it is "an ordinary standard zoom" even if it is marketed and positioned that way. It is fully professional in terms of IQ. In order to get anything similar from Nikon does cost an awful lot more, especially when SR is factored in.

Basically, that's the point.
08-01-2008, 09:41 AM   #11
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
Original Poster
Thanks for the responses. I hope people realise I am not slagging Nikon, since I have a great deal of respect or them. (Canon may be another matter!) And, from what I've seen, I do like their new camera. Heck, it even stole something from Pentax... the RAW button.

But even if I had all the money in the world I would feel like I'd miss something moving from Pentax. I am sure that others with different needs would not feel the same, and that the D700 will grab people from our camp.

I look forward to the next move from Pentax.
08-01-2008, 10:19 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 924
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Duplo, you are correct. I initially wrote two comparisons, one converting focal lengths and the other not. Somehow I got a bit mixed up editing the post down to something more reasonable in length. At least in this comparison there are fast Nikon lenses to match the Limiteds, otherwise Nikon fares even poorer I think. And these changes do not significantly affect the prices or the overall conclusion.
Yes but it all depends on how you do the comparison. If you talk equivalent FOV and equivalent DOF, the comparision should with a 1 stop difference between them, as i.e. a 50/2 on aps-C is roughly equivalent to a 75/2.8 on 35mm digital.
That was my point the 43 is roughly comparable to a 60/2.8 in terms of FOV and DOF.
That said and as written above, the FA43, is one of the lenses i have not found an equal to in the Nikkor camp.
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Well, there are no really comparable lenses. Though the DA16-45 is bottom of the totem pole in terms of its class, it is top of the pile in terms of quality. I disagree that it is "an ordinary standard zoom" even if it is marketed and positioned that way. It is fully professional in terms of IQ. In order to get anything similar from Nikon does cost an awful lot more, especially when SR is factored in.

Basically, that's the point.
And I say your comparison is still flawed, the Da16-45 is a fine lens yes, but none the less a consumer lens, you pay a lot to get a constant f2.8 design that is fully weathersealed. something the DA16-45 is not. Optically as good as the DA16-45 may be, I sincerely doubt it is a match to the 24-70. the DA*16-50 is an APS equivalent, just as the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 is.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Thanks for the responses. I hope people realise I am not slagging Nikon, since I have a great deal of respect or them. (Canon may be another matter!) And, from what I've seen, I do like their new camera. Heck, it even stole something from Pentax... the RAW button.
I did not see it like that, I just pointed out some things in your comparison that does not make sense.
The Raw Button? you got me confused there? as I shoot RAW only I have never seen the point of it, Guess it is roughly the same as the quality button on my D3, which I have never used either btw

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
But even if I had all the money in the world I would feel like I'd miss something moving from Pentax. I am sure that others with different needs would not feel the same, and that the D700 will grab people from our camp.

I look forward to the next move from Pentax.
I am a dual system shoot, shooting a full D3 setup alongside Pentax, so I have a fairly good idea of the two systems compared.
The D700 is basically a D3 sensor in a slightly grown D300 body and a fine FF camera, but personally I prefer the D3 of the 3.
As you I am looking forward to the next steps from Pentax, particularly in the medium format arena.
08-01-2008, 10:24 AM   #13
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,666
I just hope that, when Pentax do come out with a full-frame, they put the ME's viewfinder in it. It's seriously the best viewfinder in the world.
08-01-2008, 11:19 AM   #14
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Duplo Quote
The Raw Button? you got me confused there? as I shoot RAW only I have never seen the point of it
Me neither. I think the RAW button and SR switches should just be removed to minimalise the interface.
08-01-2008, 11:34 AM   #15
Veteran Member
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 924
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Me neither. I think the RAW button and SR switches should just be removed to minimalise the interface.
No, but make it a fully customisable button in stead

The SR switch is good when you do as much tripod work as I do
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, camera, d700, da, image, lenses, macro, nikkor, nikon, pentax, photography, tele
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D700 dylansalt Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 38 01-16-2024 01:13 AM
Can the K-5 dethrone the D700 ? pcarfan Pentax News and Rumors 114 12-01-2011 07:53 PM
D700 winning me over... JohnBee Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 25 04-20-2010 08:54 AM
Going up against a D700!! Torphoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 12-29-2009 10:59 AM
Nikon D700 Matjazz Pentax News and Rumors 91 07-13-2008 01:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top