I have been contemplating making a switch from Sony to Nikon. I am test driving a Nikon D700 with the 18-200mm lens. Here is a photo that I did yesterday.
Thanks for looking!
Ron
I have been contemplating making a switch from Sony to Nikon. I am test driving a Nikon D700 with the 18-200mm lens. Here is a photo that I did yesterday.
Thanks for looking!
Ron
Yes, we live in mosquito alley Rocky. So far the Nikon is very nice. Only been playing with it for a day.
chitobeach, the possible arrival of the a77 is very much confusing this issue!! It sounds like a very nice camera if Sony ever delivers. I just have questions about how committed Sony is for this level of camera for the long run. We know where Canon and Nikon are.
Thanks, Ron
Ront... Just checking, do you mean D700 (full frame) or D7000 (really nice DX body that's the d90 replacement)?
The reason I ask is you mention the 18-200 lens. That lens is a DX lens, so it's not one that most folks use on the FX (full frame) D700. You can use it, but you go into DX mode and lose resolution if I'm not mistaken. Nikon recently released a 28-300 lens which is essentially the identical lens in FX flavor, right down to how much "reach" it has on an FX body, for the full frame cameras. That would be the lens to use on the D700.
However, I'm wondering if maybe you're playing with the D7000 instead? I'm also wondering what the guy in charge of the Nikon numbering system was thinking the last couple years....
LMAO...........has Nikon ever made sense of the numbering system?
Ront... Just checking, do you mean D700 (full frame) or D7000 (really nice DX body that's the d90 replacement)?
The reason I ask is you mention the 18-200 lens. That lens is a DX lens, so it's not one that most folks use on the FX (full frame) D700. You can use it, but you go into DX mode and lose resolution if I'm not mistaken. Nikon recently released a 28-300 lens which is essentially the identical lens in FX flavor, right down to how much "reach" it has on an FX body, for the full frame cameras. That would be the lens to use on the D700.
However, I'm wondering if maybe you're playing with the D7000 instead? I'm also wondering what the guy in charge of the Nikon numbering system was thinking the last couple years....
LMAO...........has Nikon ever made sense of the numbering system?
Hi BobH, I did indeed mean the D7000 and just changed it in my original post. Sorry for the confusion! Too many sevens and zeroes. I am still pretty well impressed with the high ISO capabilities of the D7000 also! The D700 is very nice, but WAY out of my price range!!
BTW, thanks for the POTD!
Ron
Hi BobH, I did indeed mean the D7000 and just changed it in my original post. Sorry for the confusion! Too many sevens and zeroes. I am still pretty well impressed with the high ISO capabilities of the D7000 also! The D700 is very nice, but WAY out of my price range!!
BTW, thanks for the POTD!
Ron
...I have shot them all and frankly the difference is minimal at best. The K5 is sharper image in standard mode. The Nikon has more contrast. The A580 has more vivid color. As for overall IQ is say the difference is not perceivable unless you blow the image up to 200%
If I had to start out again I would probably have the Pentax K5, the Sony A580 second and the Nikon D7000 3rd JMHO![]()
Contrast doesn't matter. Vivid color doesn't matter. Both can be changed in camera and/or in Photoshop.
Sharpness might matter, but that depends on whether the sharpness you're seeing is from the sensor or from processing. Nikon images tend to be soft "out of the camera" but the detail is there, and you can easily sharpen it up.
If they do have the same sensor, things should be pretty dang close. High ISO is the one area I'd take a serious look at. You can't fix that in Photoshop. Does one do significantly better in that area? (I have no idea)
If it does, and if that matters to you, then that will guide your choice. Otherwise, you can probably base your decision on the brand and the lens quality available in that brand.