apptech wrote:
> If I was offered any "off the shelf" camera available with a modest 
> selection of lenses and a decent flash, this is what I'd probably ask for.
>
>     http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/
>
> I'm unlikely to own anything like this any time soon.
>
>        Russell McMahon
>
> This photo alone is about enough reason why:
> Do note that it's taken using ISO6400 setting.
>
>    http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/nikond700_samples/originals/dsc_9906.jpg
>   
Hmmm

I bought in to Nikon a few years back, and now have the D300...

You have the Sony gear if I am not mistaken. Really, it is not that much 
of a leap from the Sony to Nikon. Sure, to get set up with a D700 you 
will need 2 lenses and the body, coming to US$5000 or so. But, you use 
the camera enough to warrant it... and your photographic abilities are 
good enough to take advantage of the features offered. You will likely 
be able to get some resell value on the Sony/Minolta gear. I know you 
have some long lenses which will be expensive to get equivalent of in 
Nikon... especially with the full-frame meaning you have no crop 
factor... Then again, if you are like me, you won't bring yourself to 
sell the used gear. Too much sentimental value for too cheap a resell price.

Maybe you don't want people giving you excuses to do it, but it is a 
fantastic camera (it is the D300 with a Full-Frame sensor).

Really, the camera will last 5 years (OK, the body it will be outdated 
in 5 years and the lenses in 15), at US$1000 per year, and thus $80 or 
so a month, is it really such an expensive thing? I am putting through 
about 20,000 pictures a year on my D300 (19,800 since February), and, 
for the D700 that correlates to a capital outlay of 5 cents per picture...

Go on, it's Christmas time.

Can you imagine this with a D700?
http://public.fotki.com/russellmc/atw/atwrp/rpa021.html

Rolf
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist