New Nikon 35 1.4, 200 2.0 VRII, D7000, SB-700

Mud said:
twoblacklines gave some out of context paraphrase from some sports photographer, and you're also ignoring context. I'm not sure if you're purposely trolling, but you have a very narrow view of photography and what a 200/2 can be used for. So you know, 'supertele' does not mean a heavy telephoto lens.

For the record, I did have a 200/2 AI-S.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned anything about a sports photographer, so i dont know where your getting that from ?

And if low light candids are your thing its cheaper to buy a £3.5k D3s for high iso low noise performance than it is £5200 for a 200mm lens thats the same as the old £3k one except it has Nano coating which doesnt make a difference at night as its to stop sun flare, and VR2, when the old one already has VR1.
 
Last edited:
twoblacklines said:
I never mentioned anything about a sports photographer, so i dont know where your getting that from ?

And if low light candids are your thing its cheaper to buy a £3.5k D3s for high iso low noise performance than it is £5200 for a 200mm lens thats the same as the old £3k one except it has Nano coating which doesnt make a difference at night as its to stop sun flare, and VR2, when the old one already has VR1.
Click to expand...

I've already clarified this above - but whoever you paraphrased is talking about specific applications, which you don't specify. If they didn't specify an application to go with that advice they're not someone worth listening to. Apertures aren't directly exchangeable for ISOs, they yield different images. Upping ISO reduces dynamic range...so that argument isn't as sound as many think it is. Nano coating isn't just to stop flare (which notably can come from other places than the sun), it also improves colour accuracy (though whether it can improve the sharpness of the already incredible 200/2 VR1 remains to be seen).

Sorry if that sounds like a rant, over-simplified gear arguments are currently my bug-bear.

e: clarity.
 
Last edited:
Think I'll wait and see what comes next .... if the D7000 as a top end consumer camera has those specs, it makes me wonder what Nikon will do with the successor to the D3 series and the D700. May not be until nearer Xmas, or even next year before anything is announced on that front though ....

I have to chuckle at the price of the 200mm VR2 ...
 
The D7000 is somewhere between the D300s and the D90. It's missing the flash sync terminal and remote release terminal, but it doesn't seem far off it in other areas. If anything, I think it's more of a showing of how good the D300s replacement will be... either that or they're wanting to drop the Dx00 line and moving the higher-end of the prosumers to FX... which I can't see being a wise choice in the current market.
 
It almost seems like Nikon are taking the prosumer camera and making it all about video with a sideline in photography. Whats the point in paying £1100 for a prosumer camera that you cant shoot things like star trails on because it doesnt have a remote release cable input ? You can do that on a £600 D90 and a £1200 D300s but you cant on a higher MP £1100 D7000 ?

I dont really like where this is going, especially when the likes of Sony are coming out with decent affordable video only cameras.
 
this_is_gav said:
The D7000 is somewhere between the D300s and the D90. It's missing the flash sync terminal and remote release terminal, but it doesn't seem far off it in other areas. If anything, I think it's more of a showing of how good the D300s replacement will be... either that or they're wanting to drop the Dx00 line and moving the higher-end of the prosumers to FX... which I can't see being a wise choice in the current market.
Click to expand...

twoblacklines said:
It almost seems like Nikon are taking the prosumer camera and making it all about video with a sideline in photography. Whats the point in paying £1100 for a prosumer camera that you cant shoot things like star trails on because it doesnt have a remote release cable input ? You can do that on a £600 D90 and a £1200 D300s but you cant on a higher MP £1100 D7000 ?

I dont really like where this is going, especially when the likes of Sony are coming out with decent affordable video only cameras.
Click to expand...

Taken from one of the previews:

There's also an accessory terminal on the Nikon D7000 that's compatible with the MC-DC2 remote cable release, and the GP-1 GPS unit, both available as optional extras.
 
Last edited:
No 10-pin terminal though. :(

Not that I use my remote often (usually just when setting up for a shoot and I'm the model), so the lack of the flash-sync would be more of a loss to me.

It's still going to be very interesting where this generation of the Nikon line-up finishes. Will there be a D300(s) successor? If so will the D7000 drop in price to fit in probably just ahead of where the D90 lies now? I doubt it. The more I think about it, the more I doubt there'll even be a D300 successor, which would be a huge shame.
 
twoblacklines said:
Wish they would concentrate on a D700 replacement tbh.
Click to expand...

D300s is more urgent, to be honest the D700 is still the best all round camera you can buy right now for non-pro use - it's a D3 without the bulk, has great AF and low light performance. While I'd love an update with a D3x sensor in the mix there's nothing much wrong with the D700 as is....
 
Erm, neither really need a replacement.

The D700 is lacking resolution compared to the competition and still has no lower ISO settings.


The D300 is lacking resolution compared to the competition and still has no lower ISO settings.

;)

(it's not actually really lacking, but 12.1 is definatley lower than 21.1)
 
twoblacklines said:
Why is a D300s more urgent..whats wrong with it ?
Click to expand...

The comparison to the competition? Compared to the 7D the D300s lags behind (I've used both heavily on the same day) in a few ways, the IQ looks a fair bit better to my eyes and the Canon's AF might be fractionally better for wildlife (and I guess sports) - less points but more cross type sensors. We'll ignore the video bits but they're another area...

The D700 might have lower resolution but the 5DII has an AF problem, I'd take the D700 as an all rounder for that alone (and it's lower MP seems to translate to better low light performance).

End of the day the D700 is a D3-lite and I'd buy one tomorrow without a thought, I wouldn't buy a D300s today.
 
How many of you peoples are looking at getting the D7000 then ???? I am for sure as my D80 its getting on a bit now and I need a change lol I was tempted by the D300s awhile ago but now the D7000 is coming at the end of October am going for that, will still wait for photo and video samples by the general public first though
 
Actually, after initially being disinterested I'm now giving it some thought, previously I've used two identical bodies (ease of switching between them being the main reason) but my needs are diverging. I will doubtless end up with an FX body but instead of 2x D700 I've started to think about keeping one foot in the DX camp and buying a D7000 or D300s replacement as well. As a backup body it's probably good enough, the video will be nice to have and I expect the D300s replacement will be a fair bit more. (though that said, the price difference between the 7D and 60D on the Canon side is stupidly small - who exactly will buy a 60D when the 7D is less than £150 more??)

EDIT: I should say, I'm coming from 2x D200s currently with some investment in DX glass (notable the 17-55 f/2.8)
 
I will definitely move to FX but I will always keep at least 1 DX body. There are many things that DX bodies are just better for, and If you ever shoot wildlife without the budget for a 400 2.6/600 f/4 then the D300 type camera is a necessity.
 
D.P. said:
I will definitely move to FX but I will always keep at least 1 DX body. There are many things that DX bodies are just better for, and If you ever shoot wildlife without the budget for a 400 2.6/600 f/4 then the D300 type camera is a necessity.
Click to expand...

If you can afford a D3X then you've got (slightly) superior performance to a D300 even in DX-crop mode, allowing you to eschew DX bodies...but yeah, that'll stuff the budget shooting bit. You could argue a 1.4xTC gets you most of the way to DX crop (trading the loss in aperture for the ~1 stop increased ISO performance), but I haven't seen a comparison (say D700+1.4xTC vs. D300) and wouldn't be surprised if under those conditions (and at low ISOs) the D300 was superior (and of course cheaper).
 
Yeah, of-course the D3X will give you great 12MP crops, but then you could buy the 600 f/4.

anyway, I was more thinking along the lines of portability, I don't shoot wildlife at my local park, I climb 4000m mountains and DX bodies solve the weight issue with a nice compromise. And I don't mean the body weight, but the crop factor allows you to get away with smaller lenses.

A 400 f/4.5 DX Lens could be made real light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom