View Single Post
Unread 11-09-2012, 08:02 AM   #9
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Surfsama View Post
D700 (Reference)
I like the clean iso 200-6400, 8fps with AA batteries in grip, 51 point AF, 8000 shutter speed, converts from D3 style with grip to smaller form-factor without grip, good tonal range, and button layouts are easy to use with one hand.
I don’t like the lack of easily switching between settings, no video, and heavy for its size. I could say the 12 mp sensor but honestly I don’t recall a need for more with the prints I’ve made but could use a little more headroom for crops.

I like the U1/U2 feature and the reasonable 24mp sensor. I like the lighter weight and video capabilities.
I don’t like the 5.5 max fps, 39 point AF, 4000 max shutter speed, and very little iso improvement over D700.
IF you can't shoot it with 5 FPS, it's not the camera :P... Pros started the digital revolution shooting with cameras like this 2,700,000 pixel sensor with a whopping 1600 ISO limit, and could hit a maximum of 4.5 FPS with its motor drive.

By little ISO improvement... you mean effectively an additional half stop of LESS NOISE? Honestly Surfsama, if 25,600 isn't a high enough ISO, you're either a journalist or sports shooter who shoots crazy things, or you're doing it wrong ;P.

You have twice as much vertical resolution as those journalists not so long ago, faster frames per second, as well as 4x MORE stops of light from your high ISO. That's EIGHT times more light.

If you can't shoot it with 25,600, you're doing something wrong ;P.

and unfortunately you've fallen in to the marketing hype with the number of sensors, it's really mostly the cross types that matter.

And don't get me started on the DCS that you couldn't use above ISO 800- or it wasn't very pretty. Many of Nikon's greatest cameras had less than 15 sensors, until recent years.

The legendary F6... has 11.

It's sad that Nikon had to give in to the marketing... because I guarantee you won't see a big difference in focus between a D600 and D300s.

And when have you honestly EVER shot over 1/4000th of a second, and weren't just using some ridiculous aperture at the time?

Edit: It doesn't really matter though, because what's the difference between 1/8000th of a second an ISO100 and 1/4000th of a second and ISO 50. =none. There is almost nothing you are going to shoot that really needs that extra shutter speed ;P.

Originally Posted by Surfsama View Post
I like the 36 mp sensor, improved 51 point AF, 8000 shutter, video, and greater tonal range.
I don’t like the 4 max fps, if you shoot RAW it’s 36 mp only with FX glass (Canon has smaller RAW1 and RAW2)
Why would you shoot low res RAW? Just shoot a JPEG in that situation....

If you want to shoot small raw (9MP), shoot a D700, if you want medium (20MP) shoot a D3x) Why would you buy a 36mp camera, and not intend to use all the pixels when you shoot RAW? That's what I'd like to know ;P.

Originally Posted by Surfsama View Post
, iso performance is nominally improved (same 6400 upper limit as D700)....
Are you sure you've actually used that D700? Cause I'm telling you man, that's not the ISO limit of it ;P...
Originally Posted by Surfsama View Post
I like everything (iso could be a little better)
I don’t like the fact I cannot afford it
So wait, you're complaining that ISO 6400 isn't a big enough upgrade, but the 204,800 ISO of the D4 isn't good enough for you? Did I just get punked lol? I think we're in a no fact zone here lol >.>.

Last edited by LupinTheBored : 11-09-2012 at 08:09 AM.
LupinTheBored is offline   Reply With Quote