Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-07-2012   #81
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomguy57 View Post
I have to say that the high-ISO thing has become more than an obsession...it's an absurdity. Like every other GAS-infected person out there, I drooled over the ISO capabilities of the D700 (and subsequently got one; 3.5 years later it's never let me down) when it was released. But at some point it just gets absurd. I sometimes get sucked into the clamor for more and more ISO power, until I return to film.

It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for? I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?
I shot a corporate event yesterday and have another to do tomorrow. I want to try as much as I can to be invisible to the people around me and also to the client that pays the bill. I don't want any complaints from speakers regarding flash going off in their face etc. Because of the light in the room I needed up to 3200 iso as I'm using f5.6/6.3 to get the focus I need. The D700 with a combo of 24-70 and 70-200 allows me to achieve that. I shot the same rooms a few weeks ago on the Leicaflex with 400 tri-x and can tell you that the Nikon was easier to get the shots with. Yes I like the film results a little more but the keeper ratio is much higher with the Nikon.
I'm sure that ths D800 is the dogs knackers and if I don't end up with a D3s or D4 it will definately be on my shopping list.
High iso capability just makes it a little easier
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #82
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris00nj View Post
Agreed. I think good images at 3200 are more than anyone needs.
Yeah. And 6 megapixels are more than enough! And who needs lenses faster than f/2.8? Let's all start prescribing exactly what other people "need" in their cameras, it should be fun.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #83
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirtyfivefifty View Post
Canon JUST started releasing updates for the wide primes at 2.8 with a hefty price ($849? $799? Really?), which I'm not happy about. They turned all Hollywood and became obsessed with video development since they changed marketing strategy with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
But, Canon did add IS to these lenses, didn't they? They're not cheap, but it does represent a pretty significant jump in engineering/tech.

Even though i'm envious, re: the new Nikon, i'm still pretty well planted in the Canon camp. Just because of the lenses. Even though i use a couple of Nikons, i'm firmly convinced the Canon glass is better for what i want to do. Specifically OOF/bokeh. Sharpness is a wash. I just haven't seen any AF lenses that beat Canon's Ls.

I hope Canon counters with a high MP option. I want to be able to make huge prints, and i want the detail (in skin textures) to eliminate the vinyl skin thing - so i'll never think fondly again of medium format film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #84
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
I'm actually very interested in the performance of the new f/2.8 wide primes, just because it's nice to see an alternative to the 24L at half the price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #85
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris00nj View Post
Agreed. I think good images at 3200 are more than anyone needs. ISO 3200, 1/30, f/1.4 will render proper exposure at light value of 1, which is very very dark.

You can boost the D4 to ISO 204800. When will this be necessary?
When you want to be at 1/125th and f/2.8?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #86
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
I get why some people are ambivalent toward more and more megapixels - diminishing returns, storage costs, processing speed, etc. can be real concerns. (I also get the joy of more megapixels - printing large is so easy these days.)

But higher ISOs? If you don't need them, don't use them. They have no effect on you. But there are obviously a lot of photographers out there who do want, if not need, them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #87
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew.saunders View Post
DPReview has a graphic explaining this:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/page3.asp

Both the 800 and 800E have filters, they just do different things.
Ah, now I see.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #88
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
More megapixels is better. As digital technology gets better, the more megapixels there are, the less the images have that 'smooth' digital looks everyone seems to hate.

Seriously - it's not a bad thing.
Digital would be much better if it was worse.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #89
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
I get why some people are ambivalent toward more and more megapixels - diminishing returns, storage costs, processing speed, etc. can be real concerns. (I also get the joy of more megapixels - printing large is so easy these days.)

But higher ISOs? If you don't need them, don't use them. They have no effect on you. But there are obviously a lot of photographers out there who do want, if not need, them.
well said, and personally the D700 does what I need MOST of the time. Occasionally I could do with a couple of extra stops. I don't need the pixels but I could do with a camera that allows me to use 160th at 5.6 wherever I am.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #90
robbeiflex
Registered User
 
robbeiflex's Avatar
 
robbeiflex is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkromance View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantomas View Post
I don't need to pixel peep, I can look at my own eresults. As for Hipstamatic, did I offend you? Awwww. Don't be so agro ****. Take a chill pill and settle for the camera that rocks your boat, whether it's D800, M9 or Hipstamatic
You asked for samples, I gave you them.
The Hipstamatic was a joke man. I thought you were funny. I think you're the one getting too defensive.
I think you should read his post again. Phantomas is all right, although I don't know where he stands on Hipstamatic and he makes typos sometimes. Perhaps there is a reason why Phantomas doesn't need samples.

Phantomas, how do your own "eresults" look?

Cheers,
Rob
__________________
"They say, ‘If you use this digital camera, you can take a clear picture in the dark’. The dark should stay dark. You can’t really see that much, and you don’t really want to see that much anyway.” Nobuyoshi Araki 2006

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #91
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris00nj View Post
Agreed. I think good images at 3200 are more than anyone needs. ISO 3200, 1/30, f/1.4 will render proper exposure at light value of 1, which is very very dark.

You can boost the D4 to ISO 204800. When will this be necessary?
Sports photography, 1/4000+ in indoor light, that what these ISO features are for, not so you can take pictures of kids carrying whine bottles and baguettes in Paris in an afternoon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #92
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallard View Post
Nikon's pretty clever. They don't install an AA filter then charge you more for not installing it. The profits on the E are going to be sweet.
So is Leica (always the smartest). They charge more for NOT engraving those letters on a a-la-carte body! The profits must be sweet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #93
Viktor Sebastian
~
 
Viktor Sebastian is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iceland
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
More megapixels is better. As digital technology gets better, the more megapixels there are, the less the images have that 'smooth' digital looks everyone seems to hate.

Seriously - it's not a bad thing.
Damn straight.

I totally applaud Nikon for this effort, especially after what happened last time regarding D700 vs 5D MKII.

All this is great for us, we get more versatile tools for our $€¥
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #94
Leigh Youdale
Registered User
 
Leigh Youdale is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,630
I haven't read any of the posts above as the camera doesn't interest me.
What caught me attention is that on a forum predominantly about rangefinder cameras, in 16 hours there have been 96 posts since the OP's. Just saying', as the saying goes.
__________________

Fuji X10
Leica M6
Bessa R4A
Rolleiflex (3): E3 Planar 2.8, WA & Tele
Nikkormat FTn (2)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #96
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,836
I'm wondering if any of you are the same as me in that you find nikon DSLRs increasingly... unattractive as their line evolves? Not that it matters in the grand functional scale of things, but I just can't help thinking that the d700 was a little bit sharper in the looks department, like the d3 compared to the d4. Just find the new models a little 'blobby'.

Looks like an amazing camera anyway, can't wait to see some real-world shots by photographers in darker conditions! Canons 5dX needs to be pretty damn good or more people are going to shift to the dark side with this thing..
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #97
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh Youdale View Post
I haven't read any of the posts above as the camera doesn't interest me.
What caught me attention is that on a forum predominantly about rangefinder cameras, in 16 hours there have been 96 posts since the OP's. Just saying', as the saying goes.
Because there is nothing new rangefinderish today (as usual) for the folks to get excited about.

Think about the X100 thread, in which people post a lot more than in this one. I guarantee you the M10 thread will at least triple that count.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #98
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
 
Ronald_H's Avatar
 
Ronald_H is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helmond, The Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 1,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomguy57 View Post

It's when I go back to shooting 400-800 speed film that I realize that ISO 25k or whatever we have now is totally unnecessary. The 6400 files on my D700 are usable, but what would I ever need that for? I capped the Auto ISO on the D700 at 3200. We are spoiled by this ever-increasing ISO ceiling. Who has ever been out shooting film and thought "man, I really wish I had brought that roll of ISO 51,600 with me"?
Well... last week. I had my Sony NEX-3 with me, and my Nikon FM with Tri-X in it. I could simply not use the FM. Shot below is done at ISO 12800 + 2/3rds of a stop push in the raw converter. It needed lots of TLC in PP, but there IS a picture. If I'd only had film, or even my 2004 Nikon D70, I would have had... nothing.


Concert photography by Ronald_H, on Flickr
__________________
"The only substitute for Tri-X is more Tri-X"

My Flickr

My regular website: www.lookupinwonder.nl
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #99
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
 
Ronald_H's Avatar
 
Ronald_H is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helmond, The Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 1,729
Btw, I know that the heavy noise reduction shows, but the subject is deliriously happy with this shot. Drummers are notoriously hard to photograph. I'm sure she is going to hug and kiss me next time we meet. She is pretty and half my age How much more reason for hysterically high ISO performance do you need?
__________________
"The only substitute for Tri-X is more Tri-X"

My Flickr

My regular website: www.lookupinwonder.nl
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #100
NaChase
Registered User
 
NaChase's Avatar
 
NaChase is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Davis, CA
Age: 28
Posts: 370
Somebody call the pretension police, this thread is all kinds of whacky.
__________________
Nick

RF Cameras: Leica M3DS, Leica M6, Nikon S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 7, Mamiya 7II, Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic
RF Lenses:
75 Summilux, 5cm Summicron, 50mm DR Summicron, 50mm Nikon Millennium f/1.4, Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon, Mamiya 80mm f/4, Mamiya 150mm f/4.5


http:[email protected]/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is...ong_live_film/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #101
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
 
Chris Bail's Avatar
 
Chris Bail is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Near Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 461
I was hoping it would take a few more months for a replacement...since I still have to sell my D700 and Nikon lenses to support my Leica habit.

The price of a brand new D800 is intriguing...and I think the biggest factor in what will push D700 prices down. As of a couple weeks ago, my D700 was still worth most of what I paid for it (bought second-hand). I don't even want to speculate on what percentage I'll see that drop over the next few months.
__________________
My Smugmug

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #102
djcphoto
An Englishman Abroad
 
djcphoto's Avatar
 
djcphoto is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 160
No built-in phone? I think I'll wait...
__________________
My blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #103
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,429
I don't know why all the carping: it looks, at first glance and assuming all the promising features are up to scratch, to be an amazingly good camera. I'm sure it will be very useful for those who will make use of it's particular set of features. I'm not one of those people, so I shaln't be buying one, but I'm glad it will become available to those who can make good use of it.

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #104
rover
Moderator
 
rover's Avatar
 
rover is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut
Age: 50
Posts: 13,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald_H View Post
Btw, I know that the heavy noise reduction shows, but the subject is deliriously happy with this shot. Drummers are notoriously hard to photograph. I'm sure she is going to hug and kiss me next time we meet. She is pretty and half my age How much more reason for hysterically high ISO performance do you need?
I stand corrected,

Chicks dig high ISOs.
__________________
Dad with a Camera

Millennium M6TTL with Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton

rover's world at flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #105
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover View Post
Chicks dig high ISOs.
So that's what I've been doing wrong.

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #106
AndysRollei
Registered User
 
AndysRollei's Avatar
 
AndysRollei is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: MN
Age: 24
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfunnell View Post
I don't know why all the carping: it looks, at first glance and assuming all the promising features are up to scratch, to be an amazingly good camera. I'm sure it will be very useful for those who will make use of it's particular set of features. I'm not one of those people, so I shan't be buying one, but I'm glad it will become available to those who can make good use of it.

...Mike
There will always be doubters and cynics out there whenever a new camera is announced to spew their abhorrence for such a product, even though most will never have one, let alone see one, myself included. And they think that if they will not like it then it must be a terrible camera.

I am no expert, but from what I can tell, it looks like a fantastic camera, and can not wait for some amazing pictures to be made with it.

Andy
__________________
So far this is the oldest ive been.

Rolleiflex 2.8E3 and Tele

http://andrewolson.zenfolio.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andys93integra/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #107
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Bail View Post
I was hoping it would take a few more months for a replacement...since I still have to sell my D700 and Nikon lenses to support my Leica habit.

The price of a brand new D800 is intriguing...and I think the biggest factor in what will push D700 prices down. As of a couple weeks ago, my D700 was still worth most of what I paid for it (bought second-hand). I don't even want to speculate on what percentage I'll see that drop over the next few months.
Who cares what a D700 is now worth? Is your choice of a camera limited by what you think it will be worth when it's updated? People don't seem to mind with M8's and 9's. These are all digital cameras and as such, will, like computers always by superceded by something with an updated feature set as technology progresses.
In a recent post by Roger it was quite rightly pointed out that if the article produced the goods beforehand then it's still going to be doing so after it's been replaced with something newer.
A digital camera, like a computer has to be treated as a consumable item as far as I'm concerned. It makes no difference who makes it as it's always going to get updated on a cyclic basis.
NIKON seem to balance technology with usability and reliability that fits my DIGITAL requirement hence the reason I buy their products and not Canon, Leica etc.
One can sit on the fence waiting for the next whizz bang whatever and there are countless 'i'm going to wait for the M10 posts' that crop up but all the while you sit there, photo opportunities pass you by.
If you need the feature set of the 800 then buy one. If you just simply would like one and can afford it then buy one.
Make no mistake though that in perhaps 3 years time there will be posts somewhere on the net questioning how much an 800 is now worth because NIKON have just released an amazing 900.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #108
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,732
Kent, you'll need to get a bigger bag now... need space for the OM-D!! :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #109
Mudman
Registered User
 
Mudman's Avatar
 
Mudman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs
Posts: 1,078
Nobby, I'll be happy if this finally pushes D3 and D700 prices down. Either camera would be fine for the journalism I do. I'd love a FF camera in nikon.
__________________
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
~Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #110
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,558
Personally I don't think it will that much. The D3 and D700 will always be amazing cameras whatever comes along afterward.
For my requirement it's not about pixel count it's about low noise, mid apertures and as high a shutter speed as possible. I like the video feature but it would be a bonus rather than a necessaity for me.
Until I've seen some real results from an 800 I'm not going to judge it. Even then, it would be better to use one for a few days and then compare.
I still like the D3s's abilities for 2 stops usable above a 700.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #111
Vince Lupo
Registered User
 
Vince Lupo's Avatar
 
Vince Lupo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA; Toronto, Ont, Canada
Posts: 3,834
Sign me up.....been waiting three years for this camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2012   #112
ronnies
Registered User
 
ronnies is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriturii View Post
whine bottles
There's quite a few of those in this thread. :-)

Ronnie (Who may supplement his D200 and D70 with a used D700 now )
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #113
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,341
Nikon has just wisely added a D800 technical guide PDF to their D800 website on how to get the sharpest images from this incredible camera. It touches on many of the things I used to do when testing Leica M and Nikkor lenses to make certain their focus was accurate as well as confirming their incredible sharpness. This will be a lens testers delight as we now have resolution in a digital sensor that far surpasses a film scanner or even most film resolution. Likewise, the limiting factor in sharpness other than shooting technique will be the lens. I for one however, will only use this high resolution feature to make certain the AF system is properly tweaked using the custom micro focus adjustment for each AF lens. Once lenses are properly calibrated, I'd down sample resolution to a reasonable 15-20 MPs.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #114
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,634
Quite a bit to get excited about with the D800 if it all pans out in actual use. The price appears to be reasonable too, well relatively so. Personally, my D700 is still giving me all that I need and is low on the shutter count so it won't be for sale anytime soon. I just picked up a low mileage D300 for my telephoto needs and as a back up. I'll just use these two up before getting anything new. By that time the D900 will likely be out.

If you really need what the D800 has to offer for you business or just want it and can afford it, go for it. I suspect a few of us D700 users may well pass on the D800 for the moment. for much the same reasons as i have. It is always good to see advances in cameras regardless of whether you need them or not.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #115
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
 
Pirate's Avatar
 
Pirate is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Highland, Mi.
Age: 46
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon Bob View Post
I suspect a few of us D700 users may well pass on the D800 for the moment. for much the same reasons as i have. It is always good to see advances in cameras regardless of whether you need them or not.

Bob
Well said. I enjoy my D700 and really have no need of anything on the 800 that warrants an upgrade. Nice camera, but I don't even use all the features on my 700 yet.
__________________


Leica II IIIc M3, Mamiya C2, Nikon F, F3P, F5, Hasselblad 500C/M, SW/C, Crown Graphic 4x5, Rollei 3.5F / SLX / Baby Gray, Sinar F and P 4x5, Polaroid 100 & 450 Land, Kodak Retina II and IIa, Fuji GW690II, Graphic View II 4x5.

http://dudewithad700.deviantart.com/
http://arolloffilm.blogspot.com/
My Top 10(12) Best!



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #116
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,341
To me, other than improved AF that really needed upgrading from the D700 for tracking smaller darker subjects like birds in flight against a bright detailed background, the higher MPs mean I can now crop to DX and still have a decent resolution.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #117
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by awilder View Post
To me, other than improved AF that really needed upgrading from the D700 for tracking smaller darker subjects like birds in flight against a bright detailed background, the higher MPs mean I can now crop to DX and still have a decent resolution.
That thought had of being able to crop to DX and still have decent resolution also crossed my mind. Getting a used D300 with grip to work with my telephoto lenses solved that issue for me. It also gave me a back up camera, back up battery charger and spare batteries too.

I don't do a lot of BIFs so the improved AF tracking was not a plus for me but I can see the point though. I do some aircraft photos and the D700 is just fine for that the target being much larger.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #118
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikon Bob View Post
I don't do a lot of BIFs
I like this line... I'm going to use it... BIFs!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2012   #119
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
Haha what?

Like the af-d lenses that won't AF on the base model bodies?
Most of the folks who shoot base-level bodies just shoot with the kit lens that came with the camera.
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.