[Leica] D700 or D7000

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com)]

Many of the pro's here are using 1D MkIII, instead of the FF version.  Or 
they go for the 5D when they need FF, but use the 1D far more than the 5d.  
But then this is Iowa.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 2:43:29 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Leica] D700 or D7000

Peter the pros in Lincoln Nebraska are all using 5D's and D700 just like the
pros in New York.
When you were shooting an M6 you were shooting a pro level camera.
If you now get a cropped digital camera you've just stepped down. You've
spent big money on a toy. Your no longer are in the big time you've got
yourself a camera for shooting kids opening holiday presents. While the dad
next to you is getting it with a full frame.
-- 
Mark R.



> From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein at threshinc.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:22:06 -0700
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] D700 or D7000
> 
> Wow, I want to thank everyone for the helpful comments. There's such a
> wealth of experience on the LUG.
> 
> I probably should have included in my original post: "The defense
> stipulates that we know Mark Rabiner doesn't like cropped sensors."
> :-)  Mark raises many valid concerns, but some of them may be more
> important in his word as a NYC pro than in my world as a dedicated
> Seattle amateur.  There are many dedicated amateurs doing perfectly fine
> with APS-C sensors, including a number of them right here on the LUG.
> And frankly, Mark, some of what you say is the same stuff the Speed
> Graphics folks were saying about Leicas (and even Rolleiflexes) in the
> 1940s. Then there's the little matter of that D40x and D200 you shot
> with for years.
> 
> Alastair's pictures (thanks much, Alastair!) show that there is indeed a
> sigificant high-ISO difference between the cropped D7000 sensor and the
> big, full-frame D700. But the D7000 is no slouch, either, and the D700
> is a weighty, expensive, hulking beast. The question is whether I would
> be hampered by the D7000 in the kind of shooting I do. I'm not a
> long-telephoto bird shooter. And I'm not a pro, so I don't *have* to
> have the very best just to stay competitive. I only have to satisfy myself.
> 
> One of the curses of digital is that when you buy a camera, you are
> buying all the "film" you'll ever use with it. You can't alternate
> between Velvia 50 and T-Max 3200 in your DigiBrick like you could with
> your Leica M or R or Nikon F or whatever. The sensor is what the sensor
> is, And if that sensor is in a camera that is big and heavy, that is
> what it is, too.
> 
> That's the curse. One of the blessings of digital is that it's shown us
> that there is no such thing as perfection. There's only what's good
> enough for our particular situation. We can blow things up to 400% and
> obsess about flaws we may never see in a print. Or we can obsess about
> picayune imperfections in IQ that matter only to photo editors of stock
> agencies and major publications, who use them as a quick and easy way to
> winnow down the stack of submissions without thinking about what the
> image would actually look like on their pages. In Mark's world, they
> hyper-competitive NYC pro scene, that's a real consideration. But I
> don't live in that world. And money is a real consideration for me--I'm
> not going to make it back on my first couple of assignments.
> 
> I decided that the M8 was worth it to me. I bought one new once all the
> problems were known quantities, and I've been very happy with it. I wish
> it was full-frame, mainly because I have a bunch of 50mm lenses I'd love
> to use on it as "fifties." But aside from that, the crop factor really
> didn't bother me. In fact, I like slightly wider 35mm view on an M8 a
> little better than the view of a real 50 on film. Anyway, full frame or
> no, the incremental improvement of the M9 wasn't worth the upgrade cost
> to me. Your mileage may vary. Now,if an M10 comes out with a
> game-changing low-light sensor, I probably would want it. Whether I can
> afford it is another matter.
> 
> Up until recently, I would have agreed with Mark that when it came to
> low light, there was the D700 and everything else. No crop-sensor would
> have given me game-changing low light performance relative to my M8 and
> 35/1.4 But the new sensors in the D7000/K5 (and X100) really are are
> game-changers. So I'm considering them. I also know that every time I
> pick up a D700, my reaction is, "I'm not going to carry that thing
> around." Well, If I'm not going to carry it around, what good is it to
> me? So the question is, if I can get better, usable people-picture ISO
> 3200 performance with the D7000 than I get with the M8 at 640, and I
> *would* carry it around, then maybe that's worth more to me than a D700
> I wouldn't carry around.
> 
> I no longer ask myself whether I can achieve perfection.  I ask if such
> and such camera will take significantly better pictures than I can take
> now, and whether it's worth the money for me to buy it.  At this point,
> the jury is still out on both Nikons.  I might start working out with
> weights and eventually scoop up a D700 from someone who has to have its
> replacement. Or I might spring for the D7000. Or do nothing. We'll see.
> 
> --Peter
> 
> 
> 
>> They are out of it now and have been for about 2 months, I have been
>> checking the major shops for over 2 months and they are no where to be
>> found.  Until Nikon gets it pro factory back on line, they are as
> rare as
>> hens teeth.
> 
>> Gene
> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com>
>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 12:37:54 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000
> 
>> I got my D700 nine months ago at B&H where I've got most my gear for 30
>> years. I've never seen them out of stock on it.
>> I recommend picking a major supplier and sticking with it.
>> That way they know you.
>> If you ever get a blooper you can then take it back. Because they
> know you
>> are a regular customer and they value your business.
>> For awhile CAMERA WORLD in Portland Oregon got most my photographer
> friends
>> attention but when they were bought out we were back getting our
> stuff from
>> the other coast at B&H again. But now I'm here and I'm face to face with
>> those guys. A much better way to do biz if you ask me.
>> --
>> Mark R.
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Gene duprey <grduprey at mchsi.com>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:22:41 -0500 (CDT)
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> I have also looked into the D700, which seems to be unfortunately very
>> hard to
>> find in dealers shelves, outside of the occasional demo.  My big
> gripe is
>> the
>> loud mirror noise, seems they save some bucks by using the low end
> mirror
>> box
>> mechanicals over the quieter high end parts.  It sounds like several
> mouse
>> traps going off at once, IMHO.  Outside of that I like the cameras
>> performance.  As to the D7000, I have not looked at it since I am only
>> interested in a FF body.  I have looked at the Sony A900 & A850 FF
> bodies,
>> and
>> while quieter than the D700, they are still noisier than my R8DMR.  But
>> they
>> do offer quite a few interesting features.
>> 
>> Gene
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Peter Klein" <pklein at threshinc.com>
>> To: "lug" <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:31:02 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>> Subject: [Leica] Thinking about a D700 or D7000
>> 
>> Today I was at Glazer's in Seattle, and had a chance to handle two
>> cameras that interest me--the Nikon D700 and D7000.  I've long had a bit
>> of D700-lust, as it is one of the best available-dark cameras out there.
>> I liked the big viewfinder of the D700 But after hefting them both, I
>> looked at the D700 and thought, "would you really carry that around
>> much?" Hmm--maybe not. Still, the ability to shoot at ISO 3200 like I
>> shoot the M8 at 800 is very tempting.
>> 
>> On the other hand, the D7000 seems like a "Goldilocks" camera--a lot
>> about it is "just right." It felt good in my hands. The viewfinder is
>> not as spacious as the D700, but quite usable. The new sensor (also in
>> the Pentax K5) has previously unheard-of performance (for an APS-C
>> sensor) in both dynamic range and low light ability. There are buttons
>> for the commonly-used functions. The shutter is relatively quiet (the
>> D700 is MUCH louder). Dpreview and DXOMark comparisons indicate it might
>> have a 1-stop low-light advantage over the M8, compared to the D700's 2
>> stops or more. But that's lab tests.  How about in real life?
>> 
>> So...  I would be interested in anyone's experience with the D700 and/or
>> D7000--particularly those who can compare it to the M8 or M9.  I know
>> the difference between an SLR and a rangefinder. I'm most interested in
>> image quality, handling, and real-world available-dark performance. K5
>> users are welcome to chime in, too.
>> 
>> --Peter
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information