Nikon D700 Released

[Nate P.]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d700.htm
http://www.nikond700.com/

For that kind of money, I'd go all the way and get the D3!

[Soulburner]

Actually, it goes the opposite way...for what you're getting, you'd be downright nuts to pay $5k for the D3.

Then again, the D3 is probably going to see a big price cut now because it simply won't sell at that price.

I won't be getting either...instead I'm waiting until the time is right and I'm jumping on a D300.

[Nate P.]

Yeah, but man, it has the FF sensor!

[hieuhef]

full frame doesn't mean much if they don't utilize the larger photosites, of if the photographer could care less for the increased DOF and viewing angles.

it's a good marketing move on nikon to introduce a d300 with a ff sensor, not everyone is nuts about dropping 5k on a camera.

[Nate P.]

full frame doesn't mean much if they don't utilize the larger photosites...
Well, it sounds like they do, it has the exact same 12MP sensor that the D3 has.:up:

[MaxxxRacer]

full frame doesn't mean much if they don't utilize the larger photosites, of if the photographer could care less for the increased DOF and viewing angles.

it's a good marketing move on nikon to introduce a d300 with a ff sensor, not everyone is nuts about dropping 5k on a camera.

Increased DOF? you dont get any more DOF. the D3's sensor is designed for higher dynamic range and incredible sensitivy in low light situations.

For instance, if you have the D3 and the 35mm F1.4 you can all but shoot in the dark.

[hieuhef]

you actually do get more DOF from increasing the size of the sensor from aps-c to ff, maxxx. the larger photosites usually ensure better handling of noise in your image, but it's not guaranteed. it also does not guarantee that you'll have better dynamic range, a lot goes into the engineering of these incredible sensors, merely increasing the size of it isn't enough.

[Soulburner]

Wrong...when using a full-frame sensor you get less depth of field.

The "depth of the focus field" is narrower, and the objects in front of and behind the focus point will be more blurred (out of focus) than they are with a smaller sensor.

[hieuhef]

you're right soulburner, my bust!

[shimmishim]

When I saw the announcement of the $3K full sensor D700, I was excited! I for one (for about 15 minutes) contemplated jumping ship from canon to nikon.

However, I did notice that some equivalent lenses on the nikon side were a bit more expensive than canon's. But nikon offers 5 year warranty with their lenses.... canon only offers 1. What's up with that?

I have hopes for a 5D Mk2... but not sure how realistic that'll be.

[Soulburner]

And Nikon actually includes lens hoods and even pouches with some of their lenses...Canon makes you buy them seperate.

[Nate P.]

And Nikon actually includes lens hoods and even pouches with some of their lenses...Canon makes you buy them seperate.
Not with the "L" lenses.

[MaxxxRacer]

And Nikon actually includes lens hoods and even pouches with some of their lenses...Canon makes you buy them seperate.

akaik all of the lenses come with pouches when you buy them seperately.

interesting stuff on sensor size and DOF. of all the stuff I've read about cameras, that never came up.

[Soulburner]

Its the main reason why small compact cameras have huge DOF - ever notice it's hard to get a nice background blur with a Kodak Easyshare? Tiny sensor.

[MaxxxRacer]

Its the main reason why small compact cameras have huge DOF - ever notice it's hard to get a nice background blur with a Kodak Easyshare? Tiny sensor.

yes, I always wondered about that. On some of these compacts they have F2.8 lenses, but have crazy DOF still. Now it makes sense. I cant image what a large format (8x10) camera with a F1.2 would do to your DOF.

[Soulburner]

Nearly useless...you'd have a nose in focus and the eyes and ears blurry.