Why is the d700 an adv. amateur cam?

[Kajuah]

I see everywhere that the d700 is an adv. amateur cam but a lot of people do say it's got nearly all of the features of the d3 and is far higher than a d300. What is it that defines a "pro cam" in the camera previewing world?

Granted anything can be used as a "pro cam" but what is the *definition* of a professional camera just in general? What does a camera have to have available to be named a professional camera?

[jorgemonkey]

I think the definition partially involves a camera that is built to take some abuse. I've shot with my D2h in a rainstorm (downpouring rain!) and had no problems with it. I can't image trying to take my D70 out in the same conditions.

I think the line between "pro" features "consumer" features is being blurred.

[deckcadet]

I've stated it quite clearly in my D700 preview, and after having handled one for a while I stand by my conclusion: The D700 is every bit as much a pro body as the F100 or even the F6.

If you want to know what Nikon really uses nowadays to distinguish the pro bodies? Gather 'round...

The pop-up flash doesn't disqualify it as a pro camera, not by any means. In a way, it's breaking new ground in the Nikon line.

But every semi-pro body that just wasn't considered quite perfect enough to be a Pro body has one thing in common.

Rectangular eyepiece.

The D700 is the first Nikon DSLR outside of the full size single-digit bodies, and I believe the first Nikon SLR with a pop-up speedlight, with a round eyepiece. This has been the hallmark of the single digit F bodies and the N90/F100 light pro bodies ever since Nikon moved most consumer bodies to the rectangular eyepiece. It's a small detail to be sure, but it has served as one of those little features that you needed the pro body to get. And it isn't like they can't make a DX body with one, since the D1 and D2 series have the same eyepiece type.

[Frog]

You never cease to amaze me, Harrison!

[Kajuah]

Ah I figured I'd attract your expertise on the d300-d700 series Harrison.
I always wondered, and I agree, though I never knew about the eyepiece thing. To me, it is a professional cam..it has all the hall markings of a professional cam, from it's sensor to its lack of mode dial to its noise system to the size of its buffer. I wonder on some pages like kenrockwell's blog why he calls it an amateur cam. Potatoe ... Potatoh

[deckcadet]

I'll refrain on going into much detail about my opinions on Ken Rockwell, since I believe I'm generally supposed to follow the rules here even if I am the section moderator...

[Kajuah]

Note them to me, now i'm curious

[deckcadet]

I don't know what is more pitiful- the fact that people read his site or the fact that they believe him.

The man has a handful of good ideas and a cartload of absolutely mindless drivel. Running that site is like one big joke for him, since his core principle is that gear is unimportant. He just takes it to the extreme by spouting off nonsense at every turn.

[Dylan8i]

some of his stuff is useful though, i was reading it (with a grain of salt) about the difference between flashes and it gave step by step instructions on how to set them up wirelessly, for different cameras etc.

[Kajuah]

I was thinking that when I read his review that there wasn't much difference between a 150 $ camera and a 5D

:lol:

[mn shutterbug]

Actually, the real reason the d700 isn't a pro model is because it's not a Canon.

[deckcadet]

Just remember, the first Canon camera had a Nikon lens on it

[Kajuah]

Just remember, the first Canon camera had a Nikon lens on it

Burnnnn :thumbsup:

[another view]

I'll refrain on going into much detail about my opinions on Ken Rockwell

People still buy the national enquirer. Just sayin'...

Actually, the only guy I personally know who has a D700 is a professional, and bought it for his business. He had been shooting Fuji, then D200's (one of which he sold to me) and D300's. And doing quite well with them too.

[deckcadet]

Yeah, my grandmother reads that one. It's fun...for entertainment value only. If you're an entertainment industry professional, though, I doubt it'd go over well...same reason some people don't like KR.

Anyways, it looks like I may be trading in my D300 for a D700 in the next few months... need to check up on my finances a bit and see if Nikon updates the 70-200 VR to a model that's sharper wide open. If they do, I can skip the Sigma 100-300 f4 and get the D700 sooner rather than later.

[Kajuah]

Where do you buy your nikon stuff, Harrison?

[SenorNikonMan]

need to check up on my finances a bit and see if Nikon updates the 70-200 VR to a model that's sharper wide open.

What did you mean by this? Does Nikon actually "update" lenses?

[Len J]

What did you mean by this? Does Nikon actually "update" lenses?

Occasionally...yes.

the deal with the 70-200 f/2.8 is that it is a wonderful lens on the cropped sensor but it begins to show vignetting on a FF sensor. Because it's such an important range, reumors have been circulating that Nikon will update it with the latest VR, the latest coatings and design methiods used to produce the wonderful 14-24 & 24-70 & fix the vignetting issue. Not sure if it's wishful thinking or not.

Nikon just updated the 50 f/1.4 by adding af-s & new glass. Way overdue.

As to the OP..........It, along with the D300 has many professional features. Neither is Nikon's top of the line, but they are both damn good cameras. Don't let labels get in the way of the best tool.

Len

[another view]

the deal with the 70-200 f/2.8 is that it is a wonderful lens on the cropped sensor but it begins to show vignetting on a FF sensor. Because it's such an important range, reumors have been circulating that Nikon will update it with the latest VR, the latest coatings and design methiods used to produce the wonderful 14-24 & 24-70 & fix the vignetting issue. Not sure if it's wishful thinking or not.

And if it happens, I might be on the lookout for an old-style 70-200VR bargain - I have a 1.5x sensor and wouldn't gain anything (or very, very little I'd guess) from the new one.

The new 50 is not a huge deal to me. Most of the time I'm shooting my 50 f1.4 AF (not even an AF-D), it's available light handheld. Any slight edge with sharpness from the new lens is pointless because it's handheld - and my lens is very sharp to begin with. However, AF-S would be a nice thing to have.

Two sides to every upgrade, and more options is a good thing!

[SenorNikonMan]

Occasionally...yes.

the deal with the 70-200 f/2.8 is that it is a wonderful lens on the cropped sensor but it begins to show vignetting on a FF sensor. Because it's such an important range, reumors have been circulating that Nikon will update it with the latest VR, the latest coatings and design methiods used to produce the wonderful 14-24 & 24-70 & fix the vignetting issue. Not sure if it's wishful thinking or not.

Nikon just updated the 50 f/1.4 by adding af-s & new glass. Way overdue.

O.K. now I understand. I was under the impression that deckcadet was referring to something Nikon would do to "update" lenses that were already out in the market. Kind of a recall of sorts. But he meant that they might come out with a new and improved version of the same lens. Right?

Thanks for the info.

BTW, getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm considering moving up from my D200 to either a D300 or D700. Is the D700 worth the extra bucks?

[SenorNikonMan]

And if it happens, I might be on the lookout for an old-style 70-200VR bargain - I have a 1.5x sensor and wouldn't gain anything (or very, very little I'd guess) from the new one.

So should I consider selling my 70 - 200 VR while I can still get top dollar for it? I bought mine used for $1,300.00 (including a Tamron 1.4x converter) but I see them sell on eBay pretty regularly for over $1,500.00.

If I keep it and then move up to a D300 or D700, will the sensor be a problem?

[deckcadet]

IF you regularly frame subjects in the corners, can't deal with a little vignetting, or shoot telephoto landscapes with it, then you should worry about its image quality. Otherwise it's probably not worth the effort.

[Len J]

O.K. now I understand. I was under the impression that deckcadet was referring to something Nikon would do to "update" lenses that were already out in the market. Kind of a recall of sorts. But he meant that they might come out with a new and improved version of the same lens. Right?

Thanks for the info.

BTW, getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm considering moving up from my D200 to either a D300 or D700. Is the D700 worth the extra bucks?

Here is a review of the D700 that includes a pretty extensive comparison to the D300.

http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm

No one but you can decide if the premium you pay for going to the D700 over the D300 is worth it FOR YOUR TYPE OF SHOOTING & with your economic situation.

There are tradeoffs between the 2 cameras.

D300 has more reach with the same lens....more pixel density which allows cropping, it's also lighter & it's $1,000 cheaper....arguably a better wildlife camera

D700 has better wide performance, better low light performance, is faster at 14 bit shooting, better Dynamic range.....Arguably a better landscape camera.

Len

[another view]

No one but you can decide

This is really the "bottom line". You've had the D200, so you do have a frame of reference - the D300 will be an improvement while the D700 will be an improvement and something different.

Personally I like the DX format but I'm not specifically any type of photographer - I shoot whatever I think will lead to good shots. Generally not people or wildlife, but both on occasion. I like the perspective distortion of wide angle lenses, so using a lens with an even shorter focal length to get the same wide angle of view works well for me. So does the long end - I don't really feel like I need a lens longer than 200 (although I keep thinking about a 300/f4 again). Not that any of this applies to you directly; just stuff to think about.

[SenorNikonMan]

Right now I'm really leaning towards the D300. It has the capability of shooting at 6,400 ISO, which the D200 does not, it can shoot up to 8 frames/second, compared to 4 - 5 frames/second with the D200, and it gives all my lenses the additional reach that the D700 would not.

I know that the D700 has certain advantages over the D300, but right now the D300 addresses the main concerns I have with my D200 without shortening the focal lengths of all my lenses. Also, the fact that it is quite a bit less expensive than the D700 means that I can put the difference away and start saving up for the 200mm f/2.0 lens I've been wanting.