I totally agree. I love the interaction – the involvement in the picture making process. I remember when autofocus lenses came out, a lot of people said they enjoyed focusing manually. I think it’s just the same thing…. technology moves on, but it’s up to use to choose to use it wisely.

But I still wouldnt turn my nose up at a Nikon D3!

Hahah, no, I had to look them up. I wouldn’t have guessed the difference was so huge!

Yeah, there are lighter options but they’re sort of cheap consumer kit lens style options. I was hoping for something in the middle but Nikon’s not good at “in the middle”.

They’ve gotten better with the dust, maybe the later ones are better than my D200. I still get plenty of dust on mine which shows up even at f/8 now, which means it’s time to get it cleaned again.

Anyway, enough gear related talk on here, don’t want to sully your site! :P

Did you have to dig around for those numbers, or did you simply remember them?

That zoom lens is rather heavy. The canon 24-70 is a biggie and it’s a wee bit lighter too. I do feel the Nikon lenses tend to be on the heavy side and I’ve certainly been aware that the Nikon bodies aren’t light either.

I’m unfamiliar with the product range. But there must be a 24-70 that isn’t an f2.8 beast?

Your request isn’t unreasonable…. but as in all photography-gear issues – everything is a compromise, as I’ve yet to find the ‘perfect’ camera ;-)

Good luck hunting.

ps. I thought the dust issue was solved now with the latest generation cameras. They seem to be pretty good at removing dust each time they’re switched on?

This is perhaps best suited to some gear related site….. it’s not really my area of expertise (if I have one!) LOL!

I understand what you mean with the wide angle. I’m not looking for something wider than the 24-70, I’m just looking for something smaller and lighter. That lens weighs a shave under a kilo on its own. There are lighter options, but they seem to be on the opposite end for quality. I don’t mind the cost if the lens is ideal but I’m concerned that with around 2kg of camera + lens, it will be a de-motivator.

I know you’re not a fan of zooms, but they are a good compromise. When you’re on a tripod with dedicated time at a landscape the primes are good and you can move around to discover new compositions.

But I do a lot of photography moving around foreign towns and cities, and I actually find the laziness comes in in another form – being too lazy to change lenses in a dynamic environment, because I will have to change back once I’m done with that shot. It’s also the fear of getting dust on the sensor, which is an inherent problem with digital that I don’t think anyone has properly solved.

From my limited understanding, the dynamic range and certainly the reduced high ISO noise (which is one reason why I’m interested in the D700) is a result of the relatively sparse pixel density they get from having 12MP on a sensor that has more than double the area. Looking around, it seems the D300 (crop sensor) has a pixel density of 3.3 million pixels / cm2, the D700 is 1.4 million pixels / cm2.

That’s bordering on measurbating as Ken Rockwell calls it. I don’t really care about the numbers, but the higher dynamic range and the massively improved high ISO performance would be two things I’d really appreciate.

I might try out the camera with the big lens and see how it weighs on me. On the plus side, I do have a 50 prime which I could put to good use. It costs about a third of the 24-70.

This all brings me to another point I’ve seen in the past year:

4. People turn up to workshops with ultra-wide angles. I can’t figure out why? The magazines must be pushing the ultra-wides like crazy, but the fact is, it takes a while for a beginner to get used to using a standard-wide-angle…. so adding in an ultra-wide just makes for more complicated matters.

Niall, a 24mm on full frame, is in my opinion, wide enough to be getting on with.

As for lens prices… you do get what you pay for. The 18-200 lens is terrible – barrel distortion (bending horizons), and If weight is a concern – why not consider reducing your kit down to a couple of prime lenses?

As you’ve probably heard me say – I don’t like Zooms. They make us lazy, and using prime lenses means we start to zoom with our feet, rather than staying routed to the same spot (and thus, same view point).

I’d be thinking about buying a 24 and 50 prime for that D700. But I’m sure the primes are pretty costly too.

In terms of lens quality : you do get what you pay for.

Does Nikon do an APS sensor camera with similar dynamic range to their D700? (I’m no Nikon expert and their product rage is very unfamiliar to me).

Interesting blog post. I have been thinking about the D700 on and off for quite a while now, and hearing things like this make me start thinking about it again. I usually sit on decisions to buy new gear for a while to see if I really have a reason to buy it.

The only problem I have with the D700 is that the lens options for the slightly-wide to slightly telephoto range are pretty slim. The 24-70 looks like a great lens but it’s as big as a whale and heavy as one too. Put it together with the camera and your wallet now has a really big hole in it.

I’m looking for a lens that doesn’t break the bank or the back, as a lot of my photography is done in on-the-move travel. Whereas there are a lot of choices for lens in the Nikon crop sensor range, the full frame sensor range is pretty lacking for the middle ground in the price/size/weight vs quality debate.

So I have just continued to sit and do nothing and keep using the camera I have. Which is fine, but I think it has an inch thick layer of dust on the sensor after Egypt & Jordan!

one of the things I love about teaching is how much I learn from the students!

I think you’re wise to stay out of the pointlessness of the Nikon v. Canon debate, and I don’t want to go down the equally pointless film v. digital debate, but: I bought a D90 at the end of last year (the ones you mention are WAY out of my price league, but the D90 is the top ‘amateur’ one under the D700; by the way, the D3 has a 5×4 crop, I think, not just the D3x). The D90 is amazing – much better than I expected… not that I have that much to go on. But, but, but, my simple old F65 (or the really old FM2 with just a 50mm lens) still produces creamier blues on Velvia than the D90 manages…

Still, it is all about enjoying the creativity, and the machines are just that… machines to help us along, and your images and texts always help me to remember that! :)