D700 Preview

[madmacs]

i can just see some ppl selling away DX to switch to FX... only to spend more time on the computer doing post-processing... cropping the edges due to vignetting and distortion, dodging corners to restore some exposure...

not really. d300 dx is 12mp and so are d3 and d700 in fx mode. so file sizes should be around the same. vignetting, exposure...no complaints so far. in fact i love the effect. bonus! :bsmilie:

the D700 is a welcomed addition to the nikon lineup. both the FX and the DX have their strengths, e.g. FX for wider angles and noise control, and DX for tele and macro... just choose the right tool for you...

this i agree

 

[lastboltnut]

Yah, the camera has no Singapore warranty. The price is just for indication of what the local price might be.

The SB900 has international warranty though.

Good price indication.

Just note that the camera has no Nikon Singapore Warranty or international warranty.

 

[madmacs]

D700 is a must get!! especially those who own d300, why get stuck to a dx when you can get a cheaper but capable fx!!??



yeah...and dump that d300 at low prices to me too
so all you d300 owners who want to be d700, feel free to pm me =)

damn evil :bsmilie:

 

[theRBK]

I HATE NIKON!!!

I upgrade to D200, 1 month later D300 announce.

I upgrade to D300, now 1 month later D700 announce!!!

what you should do is put your talent to good use... buy a D3 (or should it be D2X) to expedite the intro of D3X... you'll be a global Nikon user hero... ;p

 

[lastboltnut]

To me, I don't have many FX lens, so if I jump straight to D700, the only reason is for the wide angle.....but if I don't have enough mola to get those ultra wide FX lens then I will be stuck to shoot D700 with DX lens and reduce to only 5.1MP pics.....

So for me, I can't afford to get D700 for now.....but still excited over the launch, which translate to cheaper D300 (hopefully) :bsmilie:

 

[glenncain]

yeah lo cheaper d300 lo
all those early adopters lai lai~ come put your nice little d300 on the marketplace platter~~~

 

[mohgui]

why must the viewfinder coverage be only 95%??? why can't it be 100%???

are they reserving the 100% for a potential D700s?

 

[Ansel]

.....but if I don't have enough mola to get those ultra wide FX lens then I will be stuck to shoot D700 with DX lens and reduce to only 5.1MP pics.....

5.1 MP is still pretty good(how many MP does one really need?:dunno, but the viewfinder will be irritating to use with the DX masking. Your DX lenses are still usable, that's the bottom line. Certain DX lenses, like the 12-24 can actually be used as FX from around 20mm onwards, so they are still super wides on FX. I tested it, it works, so trust me on this.

.....but still excited over the launch, which translate to cheaper D300 (hopefully) :bsmilie:

This is guaranteed!

 

[surefire]

5.1 MP is still pretty good(how many MP does one really need?:dunno, but the viewfinder will be irritating to use with the DX masking.

I believe there is no masking like in the D3 - instead there will be a rectangular outline

 

[surefire]

why must the viewfinder coverage be only 95%??? why can't it be 100%???

are they reserving the 100% for a potential D700s?

it's probably to make space for the built-in flash (and perhaps to keep the specs below the D3?)

 

[lsisaxon]

it's probably to make space for the built-in flash (and perhaps to keep the specs below the D3?)

Only professional series (single digit) bodies have 100% VF coverage. The others are only 92-98%.

 

[ortega]

actually hor, i kinda like the 95% VF coverage, it gives me that 5% to crop later

kinda like a occupational hazard

 

[kkgoxplore]

Call me nuts but I'll pay the extra for a D3 for the following reasons:.

I second u if the D700 is going to cost $4k+

 

[lastboltnut]

I thought the D300 has 100%? I am not sure but I just got the data from below:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d300.asp

Only professional series (single digit) bodies have 100% VF coverage. The others are only 92-98%.

 

[yyD70S]

It probably ain't true but here are more juice... (D800, D3X, etc)

http://www.nikonrumors.com/

At this rate, where does that leave the competitors ?

 

[lastboltnut]

For 5.1MP, the long side is less than 3000pixel. I usually print my photo at 300dpi up to Super 8R, which needs at least 3600pixel on the long side. Thats why I am very happy with my cheaper D80 with 3800+/- pixel on the long side.

Lens wise, I cannot even afford the Nikon 12-24 loh. But then again, I understand that the Tokina 11-16 can shot FF at around 13-14mm wide....but still, no point rushing into FF for me...I know my limits, in terms of skills, D300 is more than enough to let me learn and in terms of financial, D300 will burn a big hole in my pocket liao.

5.1 MP is still pretty good(how many MP does one really need?:dunno, but the viewfinder will be irritating to use with the DX masking. Your DX lenses are still usable, that's the bottom line. Certain DX lenses, like the 12-24 can actually be used as FX from around 20mm onwards, so they are still super wides on FX. I tested it, it works, so trust me on this.



This is guaranteed!

 

[surefire]

Only professional series (single digit) bodies have 100% VF coverage. The others are only 92-98%.

not correct - the D300 has 100% VF coverage

 

[Benng]

Is it time to dump the D3 and grab the D700 for its weight and size??:think:

 

[sammedia]

Is it time to dump the D3 and grab the D700 for its weight and size??:think:

I dont mind to buy over any second hand D3 for $4000.:bsmilie:

 

[Benng]

I dont mind to buy over any second hand D3 for $4000.:bsmilie:

:bsmilie: I doubt anyone will let go their D3 for that price.

I wouldn't. :nono: