# First DSLR 7D or D700?



## BrettD (Oct 16, 2009)

Hello all!
Newbie here..
I'm going to get my first SLR after having many Sony point and shoot cameras that I have been very disappointed with the picture quality of.  My neighbor does weddings, senior pics, etc and uses a D700 and has pointed me that direction.  I see the new Canon 7D is fairly similar in price to the D700.  I have several older AF Nikon lenses for an 8008, but that is not a major concern in my decision - I don't even know if they would work.  I'll shoot mainly scenic and family vacation photos.  Thanks for any and all input.:thumbup:


----------



## Big (Oct 16, 2009)

All I can say!!  
Other than maybe seeing if he will let you try his out with his supervision to show you the ropes and then maybe trying out the 7D in the stores to compare which one you like more. You are picking between the 2 largest camera brands there is...


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 16, 2009)

Since it's your first DSLR I say get the 40D. You'll be thrilled.


----------



## schumionbike (Oct 16, 2009)

If the prices are similar, the D700 is more of a bargain for the most part.  The 7D have more pixel if you want to print big, and I mean big  (30x45) but if you don't print anything that big than it doesn't matter.  The D700 which have 12 megapixel should be plenty for very large print too ( just not as much as the 7D) and it does do alot better in low light situation.    Needless to say, both are very capable cameras.  For casual scenic and familiy photo, I think the D700 is an overkill.  Something like a D90 should be more than enough.  You wouldn't need 8fbs nor do you need such extreme low light performance.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 16, 2009)

The D700 is a great camera and the 7D is shaping up to be a great camera.  The D700 is obviously a full frame camera which to many folks is the sensor size to have.  Others prefer the crop sensor.  You'll have to figure that out on your own.

For me, I went with Canon because of ergonomics (personal preference) and cost.

Example:

A 24-70 f/2.8 lens for a Canon is $1300.

For a Nikon a 24-70 f/2.8 will cost you $1800

$500 goes a long way towards that next lens... 

Either way, you're getting a great camera.  You just need to decide what you want from a body and decide how much you want to spend.  Once you get all that figured out, get your credit card ready for sticker shock... it only gets worse.    You'll constantly be chasing that new accessory.


----------



## IgsEMT (Oct 16, 2009)

> The 7D have more pixel if you want to print big, and I mean big (30x45) but if you don't print anything that big than it doesn't matter


 don't be a pixel junky and having more pixels DOESN'T MEAN you can print bigger size. I have a 16x20 in GORGEOUS quality hanging on my wall from my wedding that was shot with a Nikon d70 _only _6megapix camera...

Now d700 or 7d: take each one and hold it in your hands to see what feels more comfortable for you. You're a newbee thus inexperienced, take a word of a photo freak (don't be a pixel junky). Both Nikon and Canon will deliver EXCELLENT results both on screen and on paper. Depending on studio I work for, I could be using Canon 5d, 5dmii, 1dmiii, or Nikon d200, d300. When you look at prints, you won't tell which one came from which camera.
The _only_ advantage you might have of Nikon to Canon is having someone who can give you technical assistance on the camera. Otherwise, *BOTH BRANDS ARE GREAT*.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 16, 2009)

D700 is definitely an overkill for casual shots. I would recommend D300 or D200 because they can take your older lens. Start from there, then decide what other lens you will need.


----------



## schumionbike (Oct 16, 2009)

IgsEMT said:


> > The 7D have more pixel if you want to print big, and I mean big (30x45) but if you don't print anything that big than it doesn't matter
> 
> 
> don't be a pixel junky and having more pixels DOESN'T MEAN you can print bigger size. I have a 16x20 in GORGEOUS quality hanging on my wall from my wedding that was shot with a Nikon d70 _only _6megapix camera...


 
haha, I know, I've seen sharp 20x30 from a 6 megapixel camera actually.  I was just saying that if he's planning on printing big and often, it's something he might want to considered that factor.   If you know that you are going to print a lot of 20x30s, a D70 might not the best choice, not that 14 megapixel p&s would be a better choice.


----------



## pongerts (Oct 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> The D700 is a great camera and the 7D is shaping up to be a great camera.  The D700 is obviously a full frame camera which to many folks is the sensor size to have.  Others prefer the crop sensor.  You'll have to figure that out on your own.
> 
> For me, I went with Canon because of ergonomics (personal preference) and cost.
> 
> ...



you're right when it comes to the ergonomics! (personnal preference)... the grip size on canon bodies (and sony bodies) feel a lot better in my hands... of course that's personal preference...

intempus, i didn't really compare prices with canon and nikon lenses...i was also contemplating on switching to canon system due to the grip. my hands are fat and big that's why i feel more comfy on the canon grip. 



to the poster, i've got to envy you. you've got deep pockets if you're choosing between these two very very good yet pricey bodies.

but as most of the advise you'll get from here is that it will all boil down to you actually holding, testing these bodies with your own hands.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 17, 2009)

You'd need a D200/D300 minimum to be able to use nearly any old Nikon lenses with full support. 

Read the above since pongerts hit the nail on the head. If you're set on spending all that money on those two great bodies then go for it. But don't let anyone talk you into anything. My opinion? Canon have a retarded menu and button arrangement. The performance of both cameras are excellent so that is really all it comes down to.

Don't buy into the megapixel talk. Don't buy into the video talk, (buy a video camera for that).


----------



## pongerts (Oct 17, 2009)

that right again!

when printing comes into play, that's where those megapixels come in.

@ intempus,
       the canon range comes in a little bit cheaper than the nikons...which...makes me want to switch even more...

I have to agree with Garbz regarding the button layout on these brands, I do prefer the layout of the Nikons because it almost (all) 'out there'...most of the buttons/functions you'll ever need is on the body not inside the menu system... 

(to canon afficianados, please take the above comment lightly since i haven't really had the chance to play around the canon bodies)

but, again I love the grip size(width) on the canon.

to the poster, if you're in the US, i'm sure you've got a lot of shops there that you can physically hold different brands side by side... unlike where I'm at..different brand, different store!!! phooey!!! and the prices here are so much higher than the ones i can get from bhphoto even with the delivery and taxes included!


----------



## inTempus (Oct 17, 2009)

pongerts said:


> that right again!
> I have to agree with Garbz regarding the button layout on these brands, I do prefer the layout of the Nikons because it almost (all) 'out there'...most of the buttons/functions you'll ever need is on the body not inside the menu system...


You do need to play with a xxD series Canon before you make that judgment.  All sorts of claims have been made about the layout of Canon buttons by Nikon users that aren't necessarily accurate.  As with most things, it's all a matter of perspective. 

Saying you need to access menus vs. using a button to change key settings for example (xxD or xD bodies).  ISO, shutter speed and aperture are all quickly and easily selected with buttons and wheels available to the *right* hand of the Canon shooter.  If anything, it requires you to use your left hand to change your ISO settings on a Nikon.  I don't find it necessary to stop in the middle of a shoot and delete all of my images.  I also don't find it necessary to turn my camera on and off 50 times during a shoot.  My batteries last for days and I leave my camera on while I'm shooting, even if it's for an entire afternoon... and I still go home with 70%+ power.  My FEL, AF lock, and focus point selector button are right under my right thumb.  My WB, metering selection and drive mode are available to my right index finger.

Some have complained that the function of the top wheel and thumb wheel change depending on your mode.  Is this ideal?  No.  Is it difficult to learn how to use?  Not for me and many other Canon shooters.  Especially if you shoot in one mode more than others like I do.  80% of the time I'm in aperture priority mode.  If I'm not in aperture priority mode, I'm in manual mode.  Ironically, when in these two modes the functions do shift yet I never have a problem with it...  Hell, I don't even think about it. 

The new 7D has changed the layout of the Canon buttons.  I'm looking forward to playing with it to see if I like it or not.

The point is, both systems work very well.  I shoot with Canon and I find the Nikon system cluttered and unintuitive.  Why?  Because it's different.  If I shot with Nikon I would probably find the Canon system to be clumsy.  Get used to your system and the whole conversation about what buttons do what become completely moot...  unless you shoot with both systems and have a tendency to become confused.  

YMMV


----------



## BrettD (Oct 17, 2009)

Thanks for the great advice!  My neighbor has explained why not to get too wrapped up in the Megapixel ratings.  The point about the lens prices I have noticed myself - as a matter of fact with the 24 - 70 lens mentioned.  The advantage if getting a Nikon is that Ron (neighbor) has said we then could try be get lenses that the other doesn't own and share. I guess the best advice is to really check out the ergonomics of each and see what one I like.  Sounds like either camera would be overkill for my purposes, but i hate to regret not getting the right one the first time - this is always the cheapest route.  As far as video:  I could care less.  If I was going to use this for video, it would be a video camera and not an SLR.  A question that keeps floating in my mind is:  Is there going to be a D700S out soon as the D300 and D3 have now been updated.  I would think it's only logical the 700 would follow suit.  Now getting the D700 and have it depreciate because the S model is released a month or two after would really irritate me. layball:


----------



## inTempus (Oct 17, 2009)

BrettD said:


> Thanks for the great advice!  My neighbor has explained why not to get too wrapped up in the Megapixel ratings.  The point about the lens prices I have noticed myself - as a matter of fact with the 24 - 70 lens mentioned.  The advantage if getting a Nikon is that Ron (neighbor) has said we then could try be get lenses that the other doesn't own and share. I guess the best advice is to really check out the ergonomics of each and see what one I like.  Sounds like either camera would be overkill for my purposes, but i hate to regret not getting the right one the first time - this is always the cheapest route.  As far as video:  I could care less.  If I was going to use this for video, it would be a video camera and not an SLR.  A question that keeps floating in my mind is:  Is there going to be a D700S out soon as the D300 and D3 have now been updated.  I would think it's only logical the 700 would follow suit.  Now getting the D700 and have it depreciate because the S model is released a month or two after would really irritate me. layball:


Honestly, the fact you have a shooting buddy with a Nikon would mean quite a bit to me.  If he has lots of goodies and is willing to share, it makes sense to capitalize on that.

Cost will be an issue, and there are lenses in the Nikkor line up that are even more expensive than their Canon counterparts than the 24-70's.  For me it was a serious detractor because I buy lenses.  If I were shooting Nikon I would have half the lenses I currently own... and I already have some $15k in camera gear.

But, with that said, if you only want a couple of lenses and you can cough up the extra $1000 or so difference between them and the Canon counterparts, the fact you have a shooting buddy with Nikon should weigh pretty heavily in your decision.  It would mine.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 17, 2009)

7D or D700 for a first DSLR?

Since your pockets are apparently pretty deep, do you have the $ to buy a few very nice lenses to go with the body?  If so great, if not, get a cheaper body(D90) and spend the rest of the money you saved on glass.


----------



## Tinstafl (Oct 17, 2009)

I have the D700 and have used lens I had from my nikon film days. That is a huge bonus. Also, the low light capabilities of the D700 are amazing. The down side is some of the lens are a bit more expensive but the pro series lens are very good and you do get what you pay for. I will say that the new prices are getting a bit too high though. Nikon has gone a different route than Cannon. Cannon is a fine system too. I do not own one now but have in the past and now have a bigger investment in lens than bodies. Lens will way out last the body as the next newer thing comes. Your buddy having a D700 is a great help too. The trick to get your white balance right with live view for instance is neat if you can not get a card or a white part of the shot.  I will say that it is only money and the D700 takes great shots and will run almost every nikon lens. I had a D100 and a D200 and this blows them both away. The New D3s is even better I understand with ISO up to 102,400. That rocks....but it is native to 12800 I think. I have gotten great shots up to 6400 and will work up to 3200 with no problem. In fact I shot a wedding with it last weekend and the other paid photographers were shooting cannon. We kind of had a little competition at the end. I think I was envious of their lens choices and prices and they were envious of the low light abilities.  Interesting choices ahead for you.


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> If anything, it requires you to use your left hand to change your ISO settings on a Nikon.



"Requires"? No, it doesn't. I only use my right hand when I change the ISO -- index finger on the ISO button, thumb on the rear command dial.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 17, 2009)

MrLogic said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, it requires you to use your left hand to change your ISO settings on a Nikon.
> ...


On a D700?  Really?  Isn't that the ISO button over on the left side?







If you're reaching that with your right index, you have the longest right index finger in the world... or darn near.


----------



## CxThree (Oct 17, 2009)

Have you used both brands?  You may want to rent one of each and see which one feels best to you.  Canon and Nikon both make great cameras.  You just want one that makes sense to you and feels right in your hand.  When you are on a shoot, you want it to feel comfortable and familiar so you can just think about your shoot.  Not the camera and settings.  Once you get use to either, you will take great pics.

Having said that, I LOVE my 7D.  I don't think I would suggest either one of the ones you selected as a first camera though.  I would buy a 50D or D90 and get some good glass.  The 50D with some L series glass would be great for you and the glass will stay with you.


----------



## Hobbes (Oct 17, 2009)

BrettD said:


> Hello all!
> Newbie here..
> I'm going to get my first SLR after having many Sony point and shoot cameras that I have been very disappointed with the picture quality of.  My neighbor does weddings, senior pics, etc and uses a D700 and has pointed me that direction.  I see the new Canon 7D is fairly similar in price to the D700.  I have several older AF Nikon lenses for an 8008, but that is not a major concern in my decision - I don't even know if they would work.  I'll shoot mainly scenic and family vacation photos.  Thanks for any and all input.:thumbup:



When I saw those images taken by different Canon dslrs at high ISO speeds I decided not to get the 7D because it's just not worth it. I mean it's only a thousand bucks cheaper than 5Dmk2 and only around 700 bucks cheaper than D700. If you need high fps I believe the good old 40D and 50D should be good enough and if you need resolution the 5Dmk2 is the right one for you. I don't care about all those people saying those high ISO comparison is not accurate or whatever all you have to do is compare the ISO 6400 image taken by the 7D to the one by the 5D... and D700 is even better than 5Dmk2 and faster too


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2009)

Just program the FUNC button on the right front side of the camera to bring up the ISO setting.....press the FUNC button with your right, middle finger while holding the camera with one hand, then use your right hand's thumb to adjust the ISO up or down, while looking through the finder, or at the displays; the ISO in use will be displayed in three different locations; rear LCD, top deck, and through the viewfinder.

Changing the ISO setting on the D700 can be a one-handed operation if you want it to be. If you need to shift ISO a lot, it can be programmed to be brought up on the FUNC. button, with the user adjusting the ISO with the thumb wheel back right of the camera.

If you want AUTOMATIC ISO shifting, say because you need to use a particular f/stop and shutter speed, like when using a big telephoto where shutter speeds are critical AND you need to be at a specific f/stop, Nikon of course, has the best AUTO-ISO implementation of all of the d-slr manufacturers--auto ISO is something Canon is still trying to figure out how to do.

The 4-way controller's center button can also be programmed to perform several functions, if you desire.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> All sorts of claims have been made about the layout of Canon buttons by Nikon users that aren't necessarily accurate.  As with most things, it's all a matter of perspective.



Yeah definitely. My opinion that Canon's layout is crap is BECAUSE I am a Nikon user. The camera feels counter intuitive, just like my camera would feel counter intuitive to a 5D user. What it really comes down to is how comfortable BrettD will be with either camera, which is why he needs to actually physically go out and hold them, and not listen to our ramblings 



inTempus said:


> If you're reaching that with your right index, you have the longest right index finger in the world... or darn near.



Maybe he didn't know left from right , or maybe he assigned FUNC to ISO. In either case how often do you change ISO? I'm more interested in where my focus icon selector is


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 17, 2009)

Did anyone ask what he wanted to shoot?  It only matters of course if he wants to shoot wildlife but if so..

To the OP, You wouldn't marry a mail order bride would you?  

Go hold 'em both!


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 18, 2009)

inTempus said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > inTempus said:
> ...



 I know where the damn buttons are... and while I have big hands, my right index finger isn't _that_ long.

No, you can't reach it the conventional way, unless you have very long fingers. So you have to raise your right hand, rotate your wrist and reach over with your index finger so that you can reach both buttons at the same time. Unconventional, maybe, but it works for me. Canon's layout makes much more sense here, but it's a non-issue for me. It becomes second nature after a while. 

Am I the only Nikon user who does this? I guess so. 

I never got the ergonomics / layout thing some people are on, by the way. I don't need to hold a 7D to know that I would get used to it after a while.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 18, 2009)

MrLogic said:


> I never got the ergonomics / layout thing some people are on, by the way. I don't need to hold a 7D to know that I would get used to it after a while.


You and me both.  Some Nikonians pretend like Canon cameras have the buttons on the bottom of the body clustered around the tripod socket the way they ramble on about ergonomics.  

As I said, it's all a matter of what you're used to and personal preference.


----------



## KmH (Oct 18, 2009)

BrettD said:


> Now getting the D700 and have it depreciate because the S model is released a month or two after would really irritate me. layball:


DSLR's aren't like film cameras when it comes to depreciation. New Nikon and Canon cameras come out every 3 or 4 years so your going to get dinged no matter what you decide to do.

Besides, the way you're going to be using the camera, it will only be worth a fraction of its original price by the time you've used it up.


----------



## Hobbes (Oct 18, 2009)

> Did anyone ask what he wanted to shoot?  It only matters of course if he wants to shoot wildlife but if so..


that's because those big pro-photographers seem to think that buttons are more important than image quality and I think we have to listen to them because they are experts


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 19, 2009)

I found that each brand has its perks. Nikon's button layout is a bit more intuitive for shooting, but I loved the 'wheel' for reviewing and stuff on my old 5D. I think the D700 is going to give you more actual bang for your buck. Full frame with better ISO performance and is backwards compatible with a lot of F-mount Nikon glass. The Canon is only usable with EF and EF-S glass, which only goes back to the 80's. 

I also have to agree with people that a $2000 camera body for casual snaps might be overkill. You can spend a quarter of that and get a camera that will give you good results too, leaving yourself a lot of money for the more important part of the equation: lenses.


----------



## cfusionpm (Oct 19, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> The Canon is only usable with EF and EF-S glass, which only goes back to the 80's.


"Only"? There are about 120 first-party Canon lenses available for EF and EF-S mounts, with focal length ranging from 10mm to 1200mm. It's also compatible with third party Sigma and Tamron lenses. So unless you have a massive collection of vintage lenses, I don't see how having a wide range of modern lenses is a _bad_ thing. :raisedbrow:


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 19, 2009)

cfusionpm said:


> Antithesis said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon is only usable with EF and EF-S glass, which only goes back to the 80's.
> ...



I'm not saying that EF glass is bad, I'm just saying that Nikon has a much broader timeline of glass to choose from. Most people probably won't be too concerned about it, but there is some funky old glass out there that can achieve some awesome results. 

Obviously, ergonomics is the probably going to be the deciding factor between the two bodies. I was just pointing out some possible concerns for someone who knows little of the two systems in question.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 19, 2009)

cfusionpm said:


> Antithesis said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon is only usable with EF and EF-S glass, which only goes back to the 80's.
> ...


You have to wonder how many people are going to drop $2700 on a top of the line camera then start hitting swap meets and garage sales looking for 30+ year old lenses?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2009)

There were some fantastic lenses made in the 1960's and 1970's...a 40-year old Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 is a far better lens than a six month old Canon 50mm 1.8 EF-II. I have an old 1960's 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar that is as sharp as my Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS is.

A Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 is still one of the world's best small telephoto lenses, no matter if you have the version made from the late 1960's, or a 1980's, 1990's, or 2000's model. This was in fact "the" lens that made Nikon's fame.

A 1977 Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF supertelephoto is still a superb lens (I own one). I have a "new" one, made in 1982.

A 1970's-made Vivitar 600mm f/8 Series One solid catadioptric lens, made out of three pounds of solid optical glass by Perkin-Elmer (the same NASA space program contractor) is one of the finest mirror lenses ever made.

A 1950's era Leica 135mm short-mount bellows lens is one of the finest macro lenses I have ever seen.

A 1969 Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lens can resolve single human hair at 30 meters.

Canon cameras are GREAT, because they can use all these lenses, with simple adapters! EOS cameras can accept 9 different lens mounts with adapters.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 19, 2009)

Derrel,

I never said there weren't great old lenses (I know there are), my question was how many people that drop $2700 on a new body equip that new body with 40 year old lenses?  I'm sure there are a few, no doubt, especially connoisseurs like yourself.  But I would guess they comprise a minority of new camera buyers.  

Most novices just getting started today have little desire to scour the used lens bin at their local pawn shop looking for glass they have no idea even exists.  I would hazard a guess that most new users, like myself, shop for newer lenses.  Most new users will assume a new lens is better than a 40 year old lens - right or wrong.

Yes, the Canon mount is cool as you can use Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, M42 mount lenses, Leica R mount lenses, etc.  But I'll probably never buy one of those old badass Nikon lenses or an adapter to use them.  I simply have no desire or need.  I've yet to meet anyone who did have any interest... and I know some diehard Canon shooters who have been shooting professionally for years.  

As for image quality, as soon as I find something wrong with one of my images that I can attribute to my Canon L lenses being deficient, I may switch to Hasselblad or maybe even a D3x.  So far I've been nothing short of amazed with the performance of my bodies and lenses.  I can afford a D3x if I wanted one, but I honestly don't.  That may change.  I've done stranger things than dump all of my gear to switch to another brand.


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 19, 2009)

And I have no doubts to the ability of your L lenses. And I have many doubts that the OP will be rifling through bargain bins at a flea market looking for vintage glass. But, if you go to sites like keh.com or ebay, you can find some good quality MF lenses at low prices. But, I guess this applies to both bodies. Do the adapters allow you to actually meter and such?


----------



## Garbz (Oct 20, 2009)

Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:

Seriously though I just noticed no one brought it up. Everyone was attacking the OP's experience as a reason not to get these top of the line cameras, but which one of these would make you happier:
D700 + single kit lens
D90 + 2 professional f/2.8 lenses?


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 20, 2009)

^^^^^


Antithesis said:


> I also have to agree with people that a $2000 camera body for casual snaps might be overkill. You can spend a quarter of that and get a camera that will give you good results too, leaving yourself a lot of money for the more important part of the equation: lenses.



I agree with the latter completely. The $2700 camera body will be a paperweight in 3 years. Granted, it is Nikon's only full frame body outside the D3 line, which may influence the purchase.

Still, if full-frame is super important, a used 5D can take some amazing pictures as well.


----------



## BrettD (Oct 20, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:
> 
> Seriously though I just noticed no one brought it up. Everyone was attacking the OP's experience as a reason not to get these top of the line cameras, but which one of these would make you happier:
> D700 + single kit lens
> D90 + 2 professional f/2.8 lenses?



Truly, an extra $1k to $1.5K for the body isn't going to make any difference in my purchasing of lenses.  I just would like to get something that I will be happy with the first time.  I assume the D700 will give me all the photographic quality I could ever want and that is one of the main reasons I was looking at that model - well that and my semi-professional neighbor has one and has offered to share his lenses with me.  I was thinking of the 24-70 2.8 as my first primary lens.  I noticed a Nikon 18-200 lens made for DX cameras that is very reasonably in price.  Does the fact it's made for the DX image sensor mean that I can't use it on the D700?


----------



## schumionbike (Oct 20, 2009)

you can use a dx lens on an fx camera, except you'll only get 5.1 megapixel instead of 12.1 megapixel.  In my opinion, it's not worth it.  Use FX lens with FX camera.  the funny thing is 5.1 megapixel is probably enough for at least a sharp 12x18 print.


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 20, 2009)

BrettD said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Well after spending $2700 on a body he may not have money left for lenses :lmao:
> ...



There is little point in using cheaper, consumer quality glass on an expensive body. It's kind of a backwards approach to image quality. Most people put nicer glass on a cheaper body. But, if you can afford to put nice glass on a nice body, then go for it. Once your knowledge catches up with your gear, you'll be on track for some awesome photo's. Oh, and I wish I had as deep a pockets as yours .


----------



## Garbz (Oct 21, 2009)

Um the 18-200 is probably the worst lens I have used in terms of image quality (except the 50mm f/1.2 but even that one is quite respectable above f/2). 

If you match the D700 with the 18-200, you will be disappointed and it will have nothing to do with the 5mpx resolution. In cases like this I really need to re-iterate my original point that a D90 with 2 pro lenses will outperform a D700 with crap bolted to the front in every way except low light performance. In my opinion not worth it, but I've seen this combination before (by a friend who upgraded  but had no decent lenses) and she seemed happy. At least she may one day. She's bought 3 lenses in the past year because she was fed up with the poor results.


----------



## BrettD (Oct 21, 2009)

Okay, thanks for the info about the DX lenses.  I was noticing the 18 to 200mm thinking it may be a useful range if I didn't take along any addition glass somewhere.  Sounds as if you are liking it to buying a ZR1 Vette or Ferrari and going to Kmart for rubber.  No DX lenses it is. :thumbup:   I'm still going to give the Canon a chance, but I think there're too many little bonuses with the Nikon to ignore.  Any suggestions for a good all-around lenses other than the 24-70?  Once again, I really appreciate the help. :thumbup:

Edit:  Any opinions on the 24-120 variable aperture Nikkor?


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 21, 2009)

If you have a large budget, many people do the 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 combo (the "holy trinity"). But, that's like $5-6k worth of glass. But, it gets you from the super-wide clear through 200mm telephoto with the highest quality zooms available. You'd probably want to wait and grab the newer 70-200 f2.8 VRII that comes out next month, but it would be advisable to put a deposit down soon as they will go quickly when they are first released. 

You'd pretty much have one of the best setups available which can be complemented with a few nice primes like the 85 f1.4, 50 f1.4, etc.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Oct 29, 2009)

wow, going big with the first DSLR!  besides the camera, consider what lens you will be needing, and that you will most likely stick to that brand for life due to the investments in the glass you will be making!  I personally like the nikon glass far more than canon's but thats just me!  so i would say out of ur two choices i would go with the D700!!


----------



## Kegger (Oct 29, 2009)

I'm one of those few people out there that use a big expensive camera with older glass.

Nikon of course, haha. 

You already have the glass, and it can be used quite easily with the newer bodies, and even tells you when you've got focus lock. I say go out and pick up a D300, not the s, and get to shootin. Customizable menus for all of the glass you currently have if it's not AF glass, and you'll actually save some money doing it.


----------



## SlimPaul (Oct 29, 2009)

How about the new D300S? It's much cheaper and retains most of the functions of the D700, apart from an FX sensor, which for me is an advantage when I want to use my 70-300mm, and you can go as wide on a DX for less money. The choice is yours.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 30, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> and you can go as wide on a DX for less money.



Strange statement, how so?


----------



## elbeasto (Jun 22, 2011)

Sorry to revive an ancient thread but I find myself in the same situation as the OP.

Looking seriously at the D700 for a first SLR and require other peoples' thoughts. 

Thanks


----------

