# D700 Purchase Checklist Help....



## Guitarfool5931@yahoo (Mar 26, 2009)

I've been thinking about upgrading from my D40x I think I have finally settled on the D700.  It's not beyond my reach financially and it has all the options I have been looking for in a camera.  I found a website that sells the camera body curiously cheap.  futures  They're being sold for abot 1500 but everywhere else I've looked they've averaged 2,400.  Has anyone had experience with them?  They seem to be a solid merchant but I'm trying to cover all my bases.  

   Besides that I am weighing my options on glass.  I'm pretty sure that the lenses I have at the moment for my DX will crop images on the Full size sensor of the D700.  How do I know which lenses take advantage of the full sensor and will not crop my images?

    These are the lenses I am looking to have for my D700:


30mm 1.4
18-135 mm ( I am very partial to the one I have now)
Macro lens--Not sure which one yet--Any recommendations?
Lens Baby
Wide Angle/Fisheye Lens


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 26, 2009)

Thats a 2500 camera... for 1500?  That just SCREAMS scam.

When something looks too good to be true... it is.

Use a reputable vendor like Sigma4less, Adorama or B&H Photo.


Your lens choices:


30mm 1.4
You need to sit down and LEARN what a FX camera is vs a DX camera.  You are purchasing a 30mm F/1.4 (Sigma is the only one that I know of, and I could be wrong, but doubt it). DX lens to use on a FX sensor camera.



18-135 mm ( I am very partial to the one I have now)
Again... a DX lens on a D700 turns your 12MP dream machine into a 5MP point and shoot.  


Macro lens--Not sure which one yet--Any recommendations?
Sigma 105mm macro, Nikkor 105mm macro.


Lens Baby
Waste of time and money.  I can do in post process better what the lens baby does on camera and costs you  money.


Wide Angle/Fisheye Lens
Sigma 15mm F/2.8.






My final comment?  If you are purchasing a camera like a D700, you should be aware that putting low quality glass on something like a D700 is like putting  bicycle tires on a Ferrari. If the thought of spending $2000 for a single lens freaks you out... the D700 is NOT the camera for you.


----------



## Guitarfool5931@yahoo (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm definitely not ordering from the website I found. Did some research and they have very bad reviews.  

I should have explained a little better on my lens choices.  I use the 18-135 lens as my go to when I'm just out and about shooting.  It's not a big lens and I can carry it in my small camera bag no problem.  I knew I would have to buy some new glass if I purchased the D700 camera because of it's sensor size so I was looking for something similar to the ones I have for my D40x now.  

As for the Sigma 30mm lens, I already own it.  I was just curious if by some stroke of luck I would be able to use it on the D700 as well.  I figured I would be spending $2000-$3,000 in lenses after the camera purchase itself.    Nice fisheye pic btw.


----------



## Lyncca (Mar 26, 2009)

Also, I assume you know how to use your current camera in the manual modes (M, A, S, P)? Cause that D700 isn't gonna have the cheat scene settings 

Just wanted to make sure, cause I know a couple of people that were shocked moving up to the D200 & D300. All of a sudden they didn't know how to take a picture 

Otherwise, congrats on the new equipment. I'm certainly jealous!


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 26, 2009)

People need to do a LOT of research before looking to make any purchase.  If they did, they would know that basically any and all DX lenses are useless on a D700.  With a D700, if you slap on a DX lens on it, you will have an ugly huge black circle around all your pictures or if you go into crop mode, your pictures drop from 12  megapixel to 5 megapixel, cutting the quality of the shots to less than 50%.  This is an example of what I meant by doing research and what not.  *ALL* your lenses are DX... all your lenses will do this with the D700.  Let me show you what a DX lens looks like with a D700 in FX mode:






See that black area?  This is what will happen with each and every picture you take using any of your lenses.  DX lenses are made for smaller DX sensors.  Put them on a FX camera, and you get this massive vignetting that DOESN'T come off.  Now, you can put the camera into crop mode and that ugly black area goes away, but the picture drops from 12MP to 5MP.  If you were to do that, the camera now has the picture size SMALLER than your D40x... by about 40% smaller!

On top of that this camera *is* a pro level camera and very unforgiving of lacking or weak understanding of photography and a slew of other factors.

I will never be the one to say "this camera is too much for a new dSLR user", but I will say that this camera DEMANDS many things of the photographer both financially and in the skill-knowledge department.  It is a very unforgiving camera otherwise, and if you are not willing to be realistic about your abilities, you will know in great detail what the word frustration means.  In that case, you just may be better off sticking to the D40 if you are not willing to accept these facts.

This camera *makes* you work hard to get a decent picture out of it... but once you have mastered it and the basics of photography, the results are nothing less than impressive.  

BTW, a tightly controlled lensbaby effect done in post process:


----------



## Katier (Mar 26, 2009)

Guitarfool5931@yahoo said:


> I figured I would be spending $2000-$3,000 in lenses after the camera purchase itself.



I think you'd be more likely to be spending around that PER LENS.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 26, 2009)

Katier said:


> I think you'd be more likely to be spending around that PER LENS.



Not quite that much... $1500-$2200 per lens would be the range for any _*one*_ of the "holy trinity". There are the 3 main Nikkor ones:
14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.  Then you have your specialty lenses like the fisheye, macro and zoom lenses above 200mm.  That is where things get REALLY expensive... like 5-digit (not including the pennies) expensive on some of the longer focal point ones.


----------



## Katier (Mar 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Not quite that much... $1500-$2200 per lens would be the range for any _*one*_ of the "holy trinity". There are the 3 main Nikkor ones:
> 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.  Then you have your specialty lenses like the fisheye, macro and zoom lenses above 200mm.  That is where things get REALLY expensive... like 5-digit (not including the pennies) expensive on some of the longer focal point ones.



Exactly. I think the OP would be looking for a MINIMUM of 10K to get anything close to what he is looking for.

Personally I'd forget the idea and stick to Crop Sensor or go Medium Format ( OK that means film - unless he waits for the Pentax 645 Digital or gets a digital back) but it's a cheaper option and is better quality images ).


----------



## Lyncca (Mar 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Not quite that much... $1500-$2200 per lens would be the range for any _*one*_ of the "holy trinity". There are the 3 main Nikkor ones:
> 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. Then you have your specialty lenses like the fisheye, macro and zoom lenses above 200mm. That is where things get REALLY expensive... like 5-digit (not including the pennies) expensive on some of the longer focal point ones.


 
Let me repeat, I love my D300 :heart:

I'm working toward those lenses, but I will stay with my current camera until I have built up my lenses to full sensor.  So, we can assume that means quite a while from now!


----------



## kundalini (Mar 26, 2009)

Joe, I just looked at the first couple of pages of your Flickr photos and I have to say that, if this is your better work, then the D700 may not be the best choice for you at this time.  My thoughts were that your skill set must be improved before such a jump.  Don't mean to be cruel.  I would definitely buy some proper glass first.  Then get off the D40 with something like the D90, especially if you're in hobby mode.  That way you can use any of the Nikkor lenses and utilize the AF and metering (other than the MF lenses, of course).

It seems you shoot a lot of low light scenes (bands), so think fast primes (f/1.4- f/2.0).  That 18-135mm is much to slow to handle those situations.

That being said, there's nothing to say that you can't learn on the D700.  It's just that you have to consider that a $2400 body is not going to automatically propel you into the stratosphere of great shots.  The D700 is an awesome camera, but understanding the basics of photography will serve you better.  Good luck.


----------



## DWS (Mar 26, 2009)

from a D40 to a D700 is a quantum leap, to say the least......I suggest that you research DX vs FX and the associated equipment to use them to their fullest capability before starting your purchases.....

have fun with the research and take your time!


----------



## Katier (Mar 26, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Joe, I just looked at the first couple of pages of your Flickr photos and I have to say that, if this is your better work, then the D700 may not be the best choice for you at this time.  My thoughts were that your skill set must be improved before such a jump.  Don't mean to be cruel.  I would definitely buy some proper glass first.  Then get off the D40 with something like the D90, especially if you're in hobby mode.  That way you can use any of the Nikkor lenses and utilize the AF and metering (other than the MF lenses, of course).
> 
> It seems you shoot a lot of low light scenes (bands), so think fast primes (f/1.4- f/2.0).  That 18-135mm is much to slow to handle those situations.
> 
> That being said, there's nothing to say that you can't learn on the D700.  It's just that you have to consider that a $2400 body is not going to automatically propel you into the stratosphere of great shots.  The D700 is an awesome camera, but understanding the basics of photography will serve you better.  Good luck.





:thumbup:

Very very well said. I hadn't looked at his flickr, but having done so now, I have to agree 100% with you.


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> People need to do a LOT of research before looking to make any purchase.  If they did, they would know that basically any and all DX lenses are useless on a D700.  With a D700, if you slap on a DX lens on it, you will have an ugly huge black circle around all your pictures or if you go into crop mode, your pictures drop from 12  megapixel to 5 megapixel, cutting the quality of the shots to less than 50%.  This is an example of what I meant by doing research and what not.  *ALL* your lenses are DX... all your lenses will do this with the D700.  Let me show you what a DX lens looks like with a D700 in FX mode:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






No... The camera does not make you work hard to get a decent picture. If you could get a good picture with another camera, you will get a good picture with a D700. 

Explain to me how this is "hard"

Check your light meter... set your shutter and aperture... shutter is to slow.. choose anywhere from 200-6400iso... Take a picture. Honestly, what is so hard about that? 

I would actually say it is much harder to get a good picture from a D40, where... noise starts to be bad at iso 800... you have no internal AF motor or top screen... No Depth of field preview... no easy shutter/aperture wheel... a light meter that is a tad off and a much less capable sensor/processing. 

If you know how to use a camera and know photography... You can shoot with a D700 and get a good picture. There are alot of Menu's, and a lot of things that you can customize to your liking.. does that mean you have to in order to take a good picture? No.. it doesnt. 

You make it out like you have to take a class on it just to understand it... Or that it takes a rocket scientist just to figure it out.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Mar 26, 2009)

> D40...no easy shutter/aperture wheel


 
I dunno, I find it relatively easy to adjust shutter and aperture on my D40.  ISO is a different story, but I can't believe it's _that_ much easier to change aperture and shutter on other models.


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 26, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> I dunno, I find it relatively easy to adjust shutter and aperture on my D40.  ISO is a different story, but I can't believe it's _that_ much easier to change aperture and shutter on other models.




Have you ever used another model? 

Wheel in the front is Aperture, Wheel in the back is Shutter. It doesn't change... You don't have to think about holding a button down and remembering which one that adjust.. and which is default set to the wheel. 

About as easy as it can get.. heh.


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Not quite that much... $1500-$2200 per lens would be the range for any _*one*_ of the "holy trinity". There are the 3 main Nikkor ones:
> 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.  Then you have your specialty lenses like the fisheye, macro and zoom lenses above 200mm.  That is where things get REALLY expensive... like 5-digit (not including the pennies) expensive on some of the longer focal point ones.



I am shooting with that kit now for my wedding photos, as well as my amateur work, and it is incredible. I really don't think that this is your right kit. You would be much better suited by a 16-85, 105 2.8, and a 70-300 VR.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 27, 2009)

Sell the lens you have now, buy the 700 and lens to suit with your change, 50mm 1.8 is cheap n good for starters, there are also various zooms to be had from the nikon range, not all need to be "fast", there's also plenty of primes under a grand and also second hand, just learn the camera and all will be fine, learn by your mistakes, read a few photography books.

Just because one model is more technical than another is no reason to buy a lesser model, as I've said before, buy the best you can afford and get to know it, after all that's all Jerry and many others have done on here, hobby photographers, no formal education, picking things up as they go along, some right, some wrong, so don't be put off, buy what you like. H


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2009)

It always makes everyone howl when someone with a bit less experience is  buying some major equipment.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 27, 2009)

Parkerman said:


> No... The camera does not make you work hard to get a decent picture. If you could get a good picture with another camera, you will get a good picture with a D700.


Hmm... you think, huh?



Parkerman said:


> Explain to me how this is "hard"


What metering modes are available with the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What metering mode you going to use under what conditions?
What setings for D-light settings are available in the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What setings for D-light you going to use under what conditions?
What settings for image quality are available in the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What settings for image quality you going to use under differing conditions?
What different settings for the kind of lens does the D700 use?
In detail, how do they work?
What settings for the kind of lenses you own are you going to use?

Want me to go on? I could add another 75 questions EASILY to that list, but I hope you get the idea.



Parkerman said:


> Check your light meter... set your shutter and aperture... shutter is to slow.. choose anywhere from 200-6400iso... Take a picture. Honestly, what is so hard about that?


 
For someone with a beginner level understanding of photography and the capabilities of the D700? Nothing. But then again, driving a Ferrari around in the parking lot at 2 MPH in first gear doesn't get you very far either. 



Parkerman said:


> I would actually say it is much harder to get a good picture from a D40


 
Not even close to reality. The D40 hand-holds a photographer through almost the entire process and though it's capabilities are way lower, it is much more forgiving. 

Look for a recent thread about why a guy with a D200 wondered why he was getting better pictures from a D40 he bought as a gift for someone, and how disappointed this caused him to be with his D200. It was certainly NOT becuase the D40 was a better camera than a D200... it was lack of knowledge, understanding and expectations.



Parkerman said:


> If you know how to use a camera and know photography... You can shoot with a D700 and get a good picture.


No, you will get *a* picture, I highly doubt it will be "good".




Parkerman said:


> There are alot of Menu's, and a lot of things that you can customize to your liking.. does that mean you have to in order to take a good picture? No.. it doesnt.


 
Riiiiiight. 

Ok... so you without a D700 seem to know more than me, who owns a D700. Sorry, you are just wrong. Your lack of knowledge using this camera is vast. Mine is a little closer to reality, becuase I own one and know how it works in real life. The D700 has no automatic modes like the D40. Looking at the OP's photostream, 99% of the shots are taken in automatic mode. This tells me that the OP's understanding of even basic photography is lacking deeply. A D700, that has no such hand-hodling modes, will *not* help him, it will frustrate the hell out of him to the point that he is going to be one very unhappy camper for quite a long time.

To get a picture out of the D700 is easy. I can hand it to my 17 year old niece who knows nothing and she can press the shutter, but thats a snapshot... not a photograph. Put a Stratavarious voilin in your hands, I am sure you can make that thing wail and sound like a dying cat in heat... but put that same violin in the hands of someone knowledgeable, you have music. This is what I am talking about. Real results. Getting the most from the thousands of dollars that you spent.



Parkerman said:


> You make it out like you have to take a class on it just to understand it... Or that it takes a rocket scientist just to figure it out.


 
Let's look at something...

The Nikon manual (downloadable directly from NikonUSA), of the D40x is 139 pages (yes I downloaded it and checked this out personally). Relatively impressive and a lot of information. 

From that same site, the D700 manual is 472 pages. What do you think... do you think that we need to have more than a couple of differences between the D40x and the D700 to generate 333 pages of extra material, no?

Food for thought now... Thom Hogan is an acknowledged reliable source of good information concerning Nikon products and his manual on the D700 PDF is double the size of the Nikons D700 PDF and close to 900 pages! 

"Oh no... there are no differences between a D40 and a D700. If you can shoot a D40, a D700 is a walk in the park, just pick it up and shoot... irrespective of the fact that there are over 700 more pages of information in a Thom Hogan PDF manual compared to Nikon's 139 pages on the D40x... even your understanding of the basics of photography is weak."

If this is what you are trying to tell me, permit me to say... uhhmm... no.

I am not a rocket scientist and I took no real classes, however, let's look at a fact... I spent 2 years, thousands upon thousands of pictures and countless hours of diligent focused study to get my BASICS of photography down pat. I am *still* in this same mode and constantly refining my skills.

I fully understand and can talk ISO, aperture, shutter speed, exposure, lighting, chew gum and walk at the same time without forgetting to breathe and passing out... lol. 

To get more than a snapshot out of a D700, the above statement is a mandatory requirement for the D700. If your understanding of the basics in photography are weak, how can you even get into the advanced functionality of a camera as complex as a D700? The answer is... you cannot.

How can you learn about each setting and how to best use your camera if you have not read through several times, studied, memorized, tested out and played many times over, with EACH and every setting in the D700? The answer is... you cannot.

Your end results will not be better than those from your D40... in fact initially they will even be worse. My first few days with the D700 and it's results were far worse than my D200 results, even with all the pre-learning, researching and reading in advance before I received my camera. This is normal.

So... bottom line... anyone can purchase a D700 and even use it to take snapshots, but if your understanding of photography is weak AND your understanding of the intricacies of the D700 is weak... your pictures will match your levels with incredible clarity.  *THAT* is what I am saying.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 27, 2009)

> Thom Hogan is an acknowledged reliable source of good information concerning Nikon products and his manual on the D700 PDF is double the size of the Nikons D700 PDF and close to 900 pages!


830, actually. But then you have to tack on all the other files, worksheets, videos, etc.

Jerry, are your corn flakes a bit sour this morning? :lmao:


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 27, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Jerry, are your corn flakes a bit sour this morning? :lmao:



  Not at all, I am in a grrrrrrrrreat mood!  For the first time in 3 months, I get to have an afternoon off today *and* I have an entire Saturday off to go and do some city shooting.  On top of that, the local weather looks cloudy and PERFECT for a day outside.  Better than working 14 hour days, 7 days a week.

Life is good.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 27, 2009)

"What metering modes are available with the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What metering mode you going to use under what conditions?
What setings for D-light settings are available in the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What setings for D-light you going to use under what conditions?
What settings for image quality are available in the D700?
In detail, how do they work?
What settings for image quality you going to use under differing conditions?
What different settings for the kind of lens does the D700 use?
In detail, how do they work?
What settings for the kind of lenses you own are you going to use?"

All this and other questions will be answered by reading the manual, many functions are just gimmicks imo, if you understand exposure, know what file size you want, which aperture/shutter to use in a situation and the performance of your optics and PP ability then why can anyone not produce a photograph equal to any of yours without the added gimmickery of a thousand menus/sub menus to mess around with.

I've got a computer here, in the field a camera equipped with metering, iso, shutter and aperture control and a decent lens is all that's required, not a multitude of crap. H


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 27, 2009)

manaheim said:


> It always makes everyone howl when someone with a bit less experience is buying some major equipment.


 
Word. If the guy's got the cash then buy it.

I mean, you don't have to be a professional driver to own a ferrari, you just need the money and want.


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> For someone with a beginner level understanding of photography and the capabilities of the D700? Nothing. But then again, driving a Ferrari around in the parking lot at 2 MPH in first gear doesn't get you very far either.


 
This has got to be the stupidest comparison ever. I've driven many cars. Put me in a ferrari and show me the controls and I can drive to the mall, grocery store, beach, etc... just as well as I could in my Pathfinder and probably better since the Ferrari handles better, acclerates faster, and stops sooner.

This guy uses a D40. It's a DSLR. Hand him a higher powered DSLR and once he figures out the controls, he can take pictures just as well as when he was taking pictures with a D40.

And what's it matter to you? He's got the money to spend. Does it irk you that he wants to buy a "luxury" item that it takes some people so long to save up for and that you don't see as something a hobbyist is fit to use?


----------



## Dao (Mar 27, 2009)

If money is not an issue, why not?

What is the worst case scenario if OP buy the D700?  I will say he need to replace his lenses.  And if he is planning to do that anyway ..  I do not see why not.


----------



## Guitarfool5931@yahoo (Mar 27, 2009)

Wow.  A lot of passioned responses.  

First, thanks to everyone for taking the time to read and respond to the post.  

I do realize, especially now, how large of a purchase this could be which is why I have been doing research online and here in the forums before I buy the camera.  Photography is and continues to be one of my favorite hobbies that I have picked up over the years.  Let me really quickly compare this to one of my other serious hobbies which has been drumming. 

I am sure that there are many much more advanced drummers out there that would listen to my drumming and say you know what that guy needs some lessons.  While I don't consider myself to be that bad of a drummer, I would not drop my sticks at the suggestion.  I strive to be a better player choosing not to take formal classes but at my own pace.  Reading books, listening to lots of music, networking with other drummers, watching videos, doing research, playing with other musicians, etc....  

I don't have delusions that my band will someday hit it big and become Rockstars.  I do it for myself.  I enjoy the process of learning, writing songs, and playing shows.  The reason for the comparison is I've approached photography the same way.  I approached photography at first because I had some extra cash, was taking a trip to Puerto Rico, and didn't want the typical point and shoot camera.  I figured I could not only take it up as a hobby but use it to make fliers, take band pictures or whatever it came in handy for in the future.  

Yeah, I kept in on auto for a while but I eventually took the time to learn the controls on Manual, Shutter/Aperture priority and have been taking a lot of pictures (not uploaded on my expired Flickr account).  

Bottom line: I have no aspirations to become a full time wedding photographer or dreams to become one for TIME magazine.  I personally feel that I have outgrown the current camera I own and want something more flexible and with better features.  It's something I will continue to enjoy and if I can afford it why _not _indulge?


----------



## kundalini (Mar 27, 2009)

I've had a re-think and after reading your response ^^, I say buy the D700.  I'm in the same boat.  I want to get good photos, but it's a hobby for me.  

The high ISO capabilities of the D700 will certainly help you out with low light situations.  The one word of caution is to consider getting at least one good lens to compliment the body.  Also bear in mind that your FoV will change dramatically from a DX sensor to a FX sensor, so for lens choice is worth going to a local shop and test drive a couple different focal lengths.  (I still recommend a prime, but that's just me).  I don't know off the top of my head if your Sigma 30 is a FX mount (I think it is), but it is supposed to be a nice piece of glass.  It's nick-name is the Dirty Thirty.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2009)

...and keep in mind that a D300 would also be a great option.  It's not as good as a D700, but then a D700 isn't as good as a D3 either.  You do have to draw the line somewhere, unless you have essentially unlimited funds.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 27, 2009)

Ummmmm, I dunno.  It's the same guts as the D3.  The viewfinder suffers at only 95%, but being housed in the (pretty much same) D300 body is pretty 'kin awesome.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 27, 2009)

D3 and D700 have identical picture results. Only real world differences that comes I hear from people that own both are:

- slightly faster focus aquisition on the D3. We are talking 10ths of a second here max
- extra CF card slot
- 100% viewfinder vs the D700's 95%
- Second rear LCD and added control buttons on rear 
- Uses a larger longer lasting battery
- Expanded Function button options
- More robust shutter life
- Minor menu and control differences

What does the D700 have that the D3 doesn't?
- ultrasonic sensor cleaner
- less weight
- integrated flash for CLS control
- you can add a MB-D10 grip and use the D3's longer lasting battery

All this for $2000 lower cost and identical pictures to a D3.

About the D700, I have never said not to purchase... but I am the kind of guy that says do it once, do it right, or don't do it at all.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 27, 2009)

The D3 has the redundant writing option for the CF cards that is KILLER. RAID1 for digital cameras.

Still, this is again about a value judgement.  Sure, it's not TONS better, but the D3 is still better than the D700... besides the point isn't so much comparing the cameras and saying the D700 is a lesser body, so much as saying you have to draw the line somewhere... so where?


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> blah blah blah




You honestly didn't tell me how it was hard to take a good picture with a D700.. I'm really not sure what all you said to be honest... I dunno, you just act like using a camera is complicated when it really isn't... I bet you are one of those guys that makes EVERYTHING complicated huh? I mean, pick the camera up, play with it... check it over, read through the manual... play with the camera more, have questions about certian things, refer back to the manual... Seriously..it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out

If you weren't able to start off getting good pictures with the D700.. well, then.. I'm just sorry.. I really don't understand how that is possible. 

Btw, just so you know.. I DO have a D700.. so.. shove it. I really get tired of your holier than thou attitude.. It is VERY annoying. Who actually uses automatic modes on a DSLR? I didn't even mention auto modes... So I don't even know where you pulled that from.

Also, please tell me where I said "beginner level understanding of photography" 



" "Oh no... there are no differences between a D40 and a D700. If you can shoot a D40, a D700 is a walk in the park, just pick it up and shoot... irrespective of the fact that there are over 700 more pages of information in a Thom Hogan PDF manual compared to Nikon's 139 pages on the D40x... even your understanding of the basics of photography is weak." "

Where the !@#$ did that come from? Since apparently you think I said that and all... 


You are just *wrong* to say that it is hard to use a D700.. Because it really isn't... It might have been hard for you... But that doesn't mean it will be hard for everyone.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Mar 28, 2009)




----------



## JerryPH (Mar 28, 2009)

Parkerman said:


> You honestly didn't tell me how it was hard to take a good picture with a D700.. I'm really not sure what all you said to be honest...
> You are just *wrong* to say that it is hard to use a D700.. Because it really isn't... It might have been hard for you... But that doesn't mean it will be hard for everyone.


 
I'm sorry... you say I am wrong but at the same time say you cannot understand what I said?  If you cannot even understand what I said in a clear concise manner, how do you know I am wrong???  Look, it sincerely doesn't get any easier and is proof that you simply don't get it.  Maybe you never will.

At this point, I will just ask myself "if I look back and ask myself how important will this conversation be to me in 20 years"... the answer is... not very important.  Well, then it cannot be all that important now.  I shared an opinion and tons of facts.  If it flew over some people's heads... I tried and the rest just does't matter. 

That is how I am going to leave this conversation and go get my camera and head out to the city and have some serious fun.  

Ciao guys!


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 28, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I'm sorry... you say I am wrong but at the same time say you cannot understand what I said?  If you cannot even understand what I said in a clear concise manner, how do you know I am wrong???  Look, it sincerely doesn't get any easier and is proof that you simply don't get it.  Maybe you never will.
> 
> At this point, I will just ask myself "if I look back and ask myself how important will this conversation be to me in 20 years"... the answer is... not very important.  Well, then it cannot be all that important now.  I shared an opinion and tons of facts.  If it flew over some people's heads... I tried and the rest just does't matter.
> 
> ...




Good job, on yet again.. avoiding the question of how it is harder to take a good picture with the D700.

You are Wrong in the fact of saying it is hard to use the D700... regardless of the babbling you did that I read, and just didn't understand where you pulled half the stuff from.. Maybe its where your head is... shoved so far up your..anyways... To say it would be hard for everyone is entirely *false*.. maybe for old people like you... you don't catch on to things as easy.. *shrugs*. 

Also, if you couldn't figure out how to drive a Ferrari faster than 2mph in a parking lot without wrecking.. you... are pathetic.. lol.


----------



## In2daBlue (Mar 28, 2009)

Interesting conversation going on here. 

I agree with the poster who said the jump from a D40 to a D700 is a quantum leap. Not even in the same galaxy here. To the original poster, you might consider a D300 as a good middle ground. It's a DX format camera that will work with the lenses you already have. If you have some extra cash burning a hole in your pocket go out and buy the primo glass that has been mentioned here. Each piece will run you $1,500 to $2,200 each. Then, when you have all of that professional glass and have mastered the D300 you will be ready for the next round of Nikon professional cameras that will be coming out in the next 18-24 months that will be even better than the 700. 

I don't think people can't find their way into a professional level camera but if you want to get your money's worth out of the D700 you have to have get the right glass first. Otherwise, you might has well just buy the D300 and keep building you bag up. 

Also, and I hate to say this, but anyone who doesn't know the difference between an FX and DX format and who is wondering, even for a second, about buying a camera from one of the cheapo sites probably isn't ready for the D700 or D3... Today at least. Like I said, I think anyone can grow into a camera, no matter who they are. 

Bottom line: Invest in nice glass before you invest in a professional level camera. Any pro (like do it for a living) will tell you that is the sequence you should take. Any amateur will tell you it doesn't matter... only because they don't know any better themselves.


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 28, 2009)

If you can afford it, go with that and the trinity, and  a 105 vr, 85 1.4, MB D10, and be the best equipped former D40 user ever. The key is *if you can afford it*, because if you can, you can learn while you shoot, I went from no camera to D90 to what I shoot with now in about 3 months. I love it, you will too.


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 28, 2009)

In2daBlue said:


> Like I said, I think anyone can grow into a camera, no matter who they are.



Just caught this, you can always grow into it, so why not start there instead of two upgrade cycles?


----------



## In2daBlue (Mar 28, 2009)

Re: ^^^^^^^

If said poster can afford $7,000 to $10,000 right now in new gear I agree with you. Take the plunge. If not, start out buying new glass and then worry about upgrading the body. The key point to my post was to say the expensive glass is more important than the expensive body.


----------



## adolan20 (Mar 28, 2009)

Here are some words of wisdom courtesy of Chris Rock:

"You can drive a car with your feet if you wan't to, that doesn't make it a good f****** idea."

I'm sure what Jerry is saying is that jumping from a low level camera like a D40 to the upper-echelon of cameras is a huge jump.  Maybe not one you're ready for.  But to agree with everyone else, if you have the money and the desire go right ahead but it may be a long and definitely expensive road ahead.


----------



## Montana (Mar 28, 2009)

Why do some people insist that the D700 is too Holy for some people?  Total BS, its just a consumer level camera that will be ousted by something much better in a few months.  Why not let someone with money get one?  Why the squabbling at all?  I know Jerry thinks its the best of the best....who cares?  Its a tool that is part of a kit that anyone with any sense at all can use within moments of unboxing it.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 28, 2009)

Montana said:


> ......... its just a consumer level camera that will be ousted by something much better in a few months.


While I will certainly agree that there will be a better unit in the near future, I will stand firm on the fact that the D700 is not a "consumer level camera".

Shooting at *ISO6400 **without *a lot of noise is unheard of usually.  There is a reson for that capability.   (not that this shot is exemplary)


----------



## Montana (Mar 28, 2009)

kundalini said:


> While I will certainly agree that there will be a better unit in the near future, I will stand firm on the fact that the D700 is not a "consumer level camera".
> 
> Shooting at *ISO6400 **without *a lot of noise is unheard of usually. There is a reson for that capability. (not that this shot is exemplary)


 
Yes, and I agree that shooting at ISO 6400 is nothing short of amazing....so far. Soon, that technology will be offered in the very cheapest of DSLR's. The price point of the D700 is fairly attractive. Nikon will eventually trump the D700 with a better D3 series.....and so on. There is always leap frogging technology between entry, consumer, and pro level camera bodies. Canon does the same. The 5D mark II is a very attractive camera, especially at the price. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the D700 is not a fine, fine camera, that takes "professional" photos. 

And being a fine tool should not make any person say that it is out of someone elses league...that is just rediculous. And to say that nothing but pro glass can be used on it is crazy too. We all know that glass is the major factor, but its not a 100% deal breaker to not have the absolute best. There are sub pro lenses that are very capable. The D700 barely out resolves the D300. It slightly edges out Canon's original 5D. So should one be saying that only Nikons pro glass can be used on the D300...no. I think some folks (not you kundalini) are acting very snobish when someone else wants a D700. Its rediculous.

I shoot crop sensor, 40D, purposely (wildlife). I know well that glass is key. I own a lens that I could of bought almost 4 brand new 5d mkII's for the same money. Am I to not own such a fine lens? Am I the greatest wildlife photog? Nope, I actually rarely get any killer shots, but i had the means and bought one of Canon's finest pieces of supertelephoto glass. i am just saying that anyone should be able to have top notch equipment without others trying to say they are not ready or not up to par to use it....thats BS. IMHO

Derrick


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 28, 2009)

Sure, consumer.......


----------



## Montana (Mar 28, 2009)

AlexColeman said:


> Sure, consumer.......


 
LOL, nice pop-up flash......


----------



## manaheim (Mar 29, 2009)

oh my god this needs to die...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 29, 2009)

Ok guys, back to a more friendly mode, ok?

Higher end = more complexity = a demand from the shooter to understand all this new stuff, and know how to use it.  

And... if you thought ISO 6400 was amazing... how about a spoonful of ISO 25,600?  :







EXIF Info:
Camera:      Nikon D700
Exposure:     0.8 sec (4/5)
Aperture:     f/16
Focal Length:     24 mm
ISO Speed:     25600


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 29, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> This has got to be the stupidest comparison ever. I've driven many cars. Put me in a ferrari and *show me the controls* and I can drive to the mall, grocery store, beach, etc...



That is the point I highlighted... you need someone to show you, you lack knowledge it will take effort to learn how to clutch that car so it doesn't stall for you at every light and make you look the fool... *it takes additional work*, you confirmed what I was saying all along.  Also, one doesn't want to drive around a parking lot with a Ferrari, we want to push it... hard.  If all you drive your life is a Pathfinder and I put you on a race track, and you don't know how to shift a manual car... you WILL be circling it in 1st gear at 2 MPH... how exciting... lol

One doesn't want to make just snapshots with a higher end consumer camera, we want PHOTOGRAPHS.

As for if I car or not if he purchases the camera, go back and look, I _*never*_ said he should not. I did say he was in for a world of frustration because the D700 is very unforgiving if the holder is inexperienced... times 10 if they are weak in the basics of photography to boot.

Flash Harry mentioned gimmicks.  *NONE* of the items I mentioned are gimmicks.  If you do not understand those items and many more, you are not getting out of the camera what it can give you (still stuck in first gear).


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 29, 2009)

Montana said:


> And to say that nothing but pro glass can be used on it is crazy too.



Try doing evening shoots of wildlife with a 500mm F/8 lens.  Now try that again with a F/4 lens... nice improvement.  Now try that one last time with a camera that does acceptable ISO 6400.

The basic rule is that you invest in the highest quality glass BEFORE you upgrade the body.  The basics of that rule say that if you have a good body and great glass, your results will be better than if you have a great body and mediocre lens.  You are lowering the overall quality of each shot with crap glass on a good camera.

If you are going to buy a higher end camera, why put a kit lens on it and lower the quality of each and every shot you get out of it?  I say *THAT* is crazy, not the other way around.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 29, 2009)

I actually really agree with Jerry, but I still think it's all about budget.

If Donald Trump were posting on here saying "what camera should I get?" each and every one of us would likely tell him to buy a D3 or D3X and all three lenses of the holy trinity, plus a really good macro and a really nice fisheye.  Why?  Because we know this would be a drop in the bucket for him, so why the hell not?

However, both Donald Trump and our OP here would probably have the same issue... while they most certainly would be able to work both that camera and a lesser body effectively, there would be more to learn and to really make the camera sit up and bark on command.

If you consider how long it takes to learn photography (even when obsessing over it) that _does _make the more expensive camera seem a little crazy, but then if you really have the money should you buy a lesser body?

I think the only time I would say yes here is if the person was more concerned about making a transition from a camera with more "auto" capabilities... but at that point, even the D100,D200,D300 are going to throw you for a loop, so the argument between a D3 and any of the lesser "full body" cameras is really kind of pointless.

I will say that I have made transitions between D100->D200->D300->D3, and yes... there was a bit of learning the eccentricities of each model, but I was able to use each progressive better model well from the moment I picked it up, so while there are more capabilities in the better bodies, my lack of immediate knowledge of them did not limit my abilities so much as give me more headroom for things  I could grow into as my knowledge expanded.

I'm a little tired so I realize I'm winding, sorry... consider all the above as data points. 

So factor in all those datapoints and I come to this...

It's all about budget. 

Assuming someone is ok with not having auto modes, they may as well buy the best camera in the line that they can afford.  It will give them more capability that they can grow into over time, and by and large will be just as difficult to work the basics as any other full body camera in the line, with the notable exception of being a bit heavier.  Certainly, the higher level body camera in the hands of a seasoned professional is going to produce WAY better results, but it's not like the unseasoned guy is going to do any worse with the D3 than he or she would with a D300.

It's all about budget.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 29, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Ok guys, back to a more friendly mode, ok?
> 
> Higher end = more complexity = a demand from the shooter to understand all this new stuff, and know how to use it.
> 
> ...



And this is one of those great shots is it?

I settled for a D300, I use good glass, I've no complaints and no reason to go FF as I rarely have anyone request enlargements over 16 x 12, and this is the only reason to upgrade. Your menus are gimmicks, I admit, some are useful but like the D40 shooter with the super-tele, *anyone* with the knowhow of exposure/composition/aperture/iso/shutter can get many exceptional shots from *any* camera. 

Within minutes of owning the 300, I had set it up and firing off test shots, I have tweaked it slightly since, set all buttons/wheels etc to suit myself but basically its a doddle and the 700 is no different, another good tool for the job, thats all. H


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 29, 2009)

Flash Harry said:


> And this is one of those great shots is it?
> 
> I settled for a D300, I use good glass, I've no complaints and no reason to go FF as I rarely have anyone request enlargements over 16 x 12, and this is the only reason to upgrade. Your menus are gimmicks, I admit, some are useful but like the D40 shooter with the super-tele, *anyone* with the knowhow of exposure/composition/aperture/iso/shutter can get many exceptional shots from *any* camera.
> 
> Within minutes of owning the 300, I had set it up and firing off test shots, I have tweaked it slightly since, set all buttons/wheels etc to suit myself but basically its a doddle and the 700 is no different, another good tool for the job, thats all. H




I will actually disagree with you on one thing... Size wouldn't be the only reason for going full frame.. The low light capability is the reason I chose the D700 over the D300.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 29, 2009)

We use flash over here, in low light if I don't want flash I meter then do a long exposure, I tend not to photograph living subjects in dark places without flash so the hi iso is not a major concern, last time 800iso medium format film for a winter wedding, outdoor only, otherwise I keep to 1-200 with no problem. H


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 29, 2009)

Flash Harry said:


> And this is one of those great shots is it?


 
Have you even TRIED an ISO 25,600 shot??? 

Try... THEN speak.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 29, 2009)

Go away fool. H


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 29, 2009)

Flash Harry said:


> Go away fool. H


 
HAHAH! Reality really sucks for you sometimes, huh Harry? And you are the one that opened the door to make themselves look the fool. I will however just move on. My point's been made. Those of you that get it, get it. Those that do not... well, it realy doesn't make a difference either way.


----------



## Flash Harry (Mar 29, 2009)

Are you for real? what sucks? I make my living from this crap and can see you on here spouting nonsense to these kids, who, I reckon, get it, those that don't are on your level. H


----------



## manaheim (Mar 29, 2009)

I love the internet.

Let's all pig-pile on Jerry.  That's constructive.  Let's be sure to insult his photography too.  Yeah, that's -awesome-.  What else can we do here?  Hm... I know!  I'll state some stuff that's _totally_ uninformed as absolute fact.  That will win me some points.

There are a couple of you on this thread that should really consider listening more and talking less.  Parkerman, in particular.  If you stopped flapping your virtual gums for 10 seconds you'd stop ticking off some of the photogs on here that really have a lot to offer... Jerry included.

I'd try to post some kind of more level-headed reasonable post to see if maybe that would get people to think a bit before they went off on someone again, but I already tried that... and clearly here on teh Internetz, that's boring and not worth reading.  So yeah.  Shut your face and open your virtual ears for 10 seconds and maybe you'll learn something.

K?

K.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Mar 29, 2009)

> Let's all pig-pile on Jerry. That's constructive. Let's be sure to insult his photography too. Yeah, that's -awesome-. What else can we do here?



Well, he _IS_ from Quebec--which is just one step above a Newfy....(J/K Jerry...:cheers


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 29, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I love the internet.
> 
> Let's all pig-pile on Jerry.  That's constructive.  Let's be sure to insult his photography too.  Yeah, that's -awesome-.  What else can we do here?  Hm... I know!  I'll state some stuff that's _totally_ uninformed as absolute fact.  That will win me some points.
> 
> ...




Honestly, from what I have seen.. and checked out post/threads... All Jerry really has to offer is equipment C&C... Which I could care less about.. I hardly EVER see C&C anything in the actual galleries, but.. You never know.. Maybe I miss all that stuff. 

And I really haven't posted all that much in this thread. 5 times... 6 including this one... All I wanted to get across is that the D700 isn't hard to use. I guess it is to SOME... but its not a *FACT* that it is a difficult camera to use. Sue me for disagreeing with your friend. 



To the OP, Honestly, get whatever you want.. Go play with a D700, if you like it.. buy it.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm not trying to defend some kid on a playground, here.  Jerry can defend himself, and I have really no place to stand up for him since he never asked for it anyway.  I am not standing up to defend a person, however... I'm standing up to defend a concept.

Our behavior on this forum continues to chase people away, and it's generally the personal attacks, the overly-biased positions that we take to defend our fragile egos from someone with more skills or more money, the "everyone jump on the band wagon to say the same not-so-easy-to-hear criticism  because it's fun to kick a man when he's down" behaviors, etc. that are doing it.

Certainly, everyone has a bad day here and there, but as a culture on this forum we are getting steadily worse.

Give peace a chance.


----------



## schumionbike (Mar 30, 2009)

You might not take advantage of all the goodies from the D700 right away but that doesn't mean you won't benefit from it. Some would not buy a camera unless they know they can take complete advantage of it while others just get the best gear they can get regardless.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 30, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> You might not take advantage of all the goodies from the D700 right away but that doesn't mean you won't benefit from it.



That is likely very true. There is such a leap in quality between a D700 and a D40, that it would be very difficult to not see *some* kind of improvement.  It would be very far from the potential of that camera, thats all I am saying.  Back to the Ferrari in first gear thing... lol


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 30, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> Well, he _IS_ from Quebec--which is just one
> step above a Newfy....(J/K Jerry...:cheers


LOL... wait, I thought the Newfs were above us... when did that change???


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 30, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I'm not trying to defend some kid on a playground, here.  Jerry can defend himself



Ironically it's Jerry that gives out all the underhanded abuse, then cant take it when someone has something to say back. Seems like only Parkerman and I can see it. And for what it's worth, I have a D700 and think it's far easier to use than my D50. Certainly doesnt make me work hard to get good photos.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 30, 2009)

Parkerman said:


> All Jerry really has to offer is equipment C&C... Which I could care less about.. I hardly EVER see C&C anything in the actual galleries, but.. You never know.. Maybe I miss all that stuff.



I don't see what this has to do with the price of tea in China, but if you mean that I do not participate in the CC sections by asking or offering CC?  No, you are correct.  I don't (not on this forum).  You see, I avoid the biggest CC section like the plague (the beginner's section), becuase after 6-7 months of re-reading the same stuff over and over, I decided to either not participate here at all and just leave or avoid that section... it was very frustrating for me.  

I also never offer CC and I also never ask for CC (except for once 2 years ago around Christmas).  This is just a choice.  I don't like to give CC and I don't ask for CC.  My logic is that if I cannot look at a picture and find my own faults, I cannot be very good.  And trust me... NO ONE is as critical of my photos more than me and I make sure of that.  At least the ones that mean something to me, that is.  I have basically 3 personal levels... the crap, that gets deleted... the ok... that gets put on flickr... and what I consider my good stuff, that stays on my PC here or is printed out.  The premise is that I take 100% responsibility for my own education, thats the bottom line.  I shoot for me, and the only opinion that has any importance to me concerning my photography is my own.  Arrogant?  Maybe a little, but as I said, I do this for me, not for a client or a boss.  If I was shooting for someone else, they would have full say.

That doesn't validate or invalidate any of my postings, though nor does it mean that I do not spend a lot of time in the other sections seeing how other people look at photos and what "advice" they offer.  



Parkerman said:


> All I wanted to get across is that the D700 isn't hard to use.



And I agree with you.  It is not hard to use a D700... but it is challenging to learn how to use it *correctly*.  More so than a D40 and even more so on top of that if your understanding of photography is weak to start off with. That is all I am saying.  If you come from a D40, have limited experience and your grasp of the basics is weak, how rewarding will the experience be?  Likely not very, and toss in a lot of frustration, because the D700 doesn't hand hold like the D40.

Will that stop anyone?  It shouldn't and I also said that a couple times here... but let's set the expectations realistically, ok?  That was the whole point.

As for Harry, well... we both kinda stepped on each other's nerves and once an adult runs out of logic... the little boy comes in and name calling is the last resort of the frustrated.  Meh... I am a big boy and can take an insult, sticks and stones and all... lol  I don't hold grudges, not for that anyway.

One of the things that I often say is to not depend on these kinds of places (forums) for advice on *if* you should or should not.  If you cannot make the decision yourself, its not time to buy and I do not care *what* the size of the roll in your wallet is.  

Oh, Parkerman, here's another thing you can pin on me... do a search, and look for how many times I asked for advice (any kind) about a purchase.  You won't find one... not just here, but on any forum that I post.

I firmly advocate doing your own homework, answering your own questions, and doing your own research.  Asking questions about a purchase is fine (ie:"what are some real life reasons I would consider product A over product B?"), but never ask "should I?" or never would I leave the final choice to someone on the internet that is on the other side of the world, is very possibly clueless as to what your needs or budget are and who's own knowledge is likely questionable.  

Because of this, I never experience buyer's remorse, I never made a bad decision, and I have only my own self to blame if I do something wrong.  By that same token, the only person I can pat on the shoulder when things go well... is me.


----------



## RONDAL (Mar 30, 2009)

OP, you sound like the perfect candidate for a D300...but that's just my opinion.  it saves you the hassle of all of the expensive lens upgrades, but still gives you a lot of the functionality and quality you would see on the higher end D700.

Call it a middle ground...


----------



## Guitarfool5931@yahoo (Apr 1, 2009)

I agree with Jerry on some points he makes.  

             My question was never about "Should I?".  It was "Which lenses don't crop on the D700?".  I was pretty much set on getting the D700 but will consider the D300 as well.  As I said before, for me at least, the whole it's above your head argument doesn't hold water with me just because I'm not looking to get my pics in next month's National Geographic.  I just want something that will allow me to get better pictures.  Whether or not the pictures are better is subjective.  Not to say that I don't welcome constructive criticism because that's always a good way to learn but whether or not I get the D700 will ultimately be up to me.  

             I know everyone here is trying to be helpful in the forums but if you're going to offer someone help don't offer it as "Well, I checked out your flickr page and in my opinion you'd be better off getting the cheaper camera".  Translates to: "You're not good enough for this camera".  

             I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of people have been scared away from this forum only because of some very poorly worded responses as good as the intentions might have been.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 1, 2009)

The best advice I can give the OP is to slow down, in fact slow way the hell down and get an FM and a 50 1.8/2.0 and shoot some b&w film, get a handle on exposure and composition, then move ahead. I generally tend to advise anyone who asks to get back to the basics, then when you're thoroughly grounded, decide where to go from there. 

Oddly enough, for about 1/3 of what a D700 cost, you could set yourself up with an awfully nice RB67 outfit that would make images that any DSLR would be envious of. It's not about the equipment, but the image.

I'm sure I'll catch all kinds of grief for even suggesting film, but in reality, eliminating the whole photoshop/post processing and working with the image you saw in your head makes life easier when you're trying to get a handle on several variables at once.


----------

