Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Nikon D700


johnmac 4 91
5 May 2012 6:23PM
Hi all, picked up my D700 today and slowly getting around the functions, a lot different from my D5000. Quick question although I may be back again. when I turn my D700 off I still have a display of numbers (897) in the right hand corner in the top display. I always have it set for raw, has anyone any idea why I still get a display off number even after I turn it off.

Cheers all look forward to your replies

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
5 May 2012 6:56PM
The counter shows the number of remaining frames based on the size of card installed and the resolution set on the camera. It remains on show, even when powered off.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
5 May 2012 7:16PM

Quote:I still have a display of numbers (897) in the right hand corner in the top display


Obviously if it is showing '897' even after you have taken more photos, that's another matter!
johnmac 4 91
5 May 2012 7:26PM
Thanks for your quick response I know it's normal now. I'm having to use my DX lenses for the mo the 24-120mm F4 and 50mm 1.8G are on back order. Really impressed with the quality from the DX hoping for even better when I get my FX lenses
scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
6 May 2012 12:24AM
You can forget seeing any great results from the 24-120 as its a dog, but the results from the 50mm should be quite impressive...
johnmac 4 91
6 May 2012 9:03AM
Hi scotishphototours, that's bad news for me. Do use 24-120mm f4 and if so what problems have you found with it?
Railcam 8 482 Scotland
6 May 2012 1:23PM

Quote:You can forget seeing any great results from the 24-120 as its a dog


I know the quality of the old 24-120 varied from unit to unit but I thought the new 24-120/f4 VR was a good performer. What is the problem please because I was considering getting one to use on my D700?
scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
6 May 2012 4:53PM
Hi guys,

Sorry for the late reply - working!...

Yep, the old version was as soft as treacle and the new version looked like it would be better but I saw several reviews on it where the optical performance was given 2.5 stars out of 5. These still exist online and I have rechecked them and they still exist.

Now I'm not saying it's a bad lens, as I'm a big supporter of Nikon, but what I AM saying is that the D700 deserves the VERY best you can fit onto it. I personally think that the D700 will show up any optical shortcomings that the 24-120 has, that's all...
Railcam 8 482 Scotland
6 May 2012 5:41PM
Thanks for your response scottishphototours. I think I will stay with my vintage 35-70/f2.8 AFD Nikkor which gives excellent results on the D700.
scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
6 May 2012 5:58PM
GREAT idea - you will not be disappointed....it's a stellar camera, you'll love it!!!
robs 11 660 2 United Kingdom
6 May 2012 9:41PM
Funny enough Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscapes reckons the 24-120 f4 VR is actually a rather fine lens

"Most people's bread-and-butter high quality mid-range zoom is a 24-70 f/2.8. But, based on my needs, and some previous experience, I chose the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR instead. Why not the excellent Nikon 24-70 f/2.8? There are several reasons. Firstly, the 24-120 covers quite a bit more at the long end, and I tend to want to always shoot tight. Secondly, though it's an f/4, and therefore gives up a stop to the f/2.8 lens, it has VR, which gains it at least three stops of hand hold-ability.

This is the lens that I place on the camera when I walk out the door to shoot. It's the lens that sits on the camera in the car, ready for a grab shot. Independant test have shown that though it's not claimed to be one of Nikon's "pro" lenses, it is quite close in quality to both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

Since I have several primes covering this focal range, when it comes to careful tripod work and striving for optimum image quality, these are always available. This leans is all about versatility combined with really good (though not superb) image quality. Here's the photozone test report for this lens."

That is from his discussion of what lenses he will be using on the D800/D800E... so I would take that as a fairly decent vote of confidence.

I was going to get one myself, but found a used 24-70 f2.8 in mint condition for a very reasonable price Wink
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
6 May 2012 9:46PM

Quote:Now I'm not saying it's a bad lens, as I'm a big supporter of Nikon, but what I AM saying is that the D700 deserves the VERY best you can fit onto it. I personally think that the D700 will show up any optical shortcomings that the 24-120 has, that's all...


My copy's pretty good, and I use it on the D700. There again I don't point it at a card with a thousand lines on, just use it in real life situations.
7 May 2012 9:08AM

Quote:Hi guys,

Yep, the old version was as soft as treacle and the new version looked like it would be better


Your experience (which seems based mainly on web comment) is different to mine - and to some extent Nikon's.
For several years Nikon promoted the old 24-120 VR as a pro lens suitable for FX Smile
I do not disagree at 24mm close focus it was soft - as were many wide angle zooms introduced 9 years ago - but used sensibly it was easily capable of pro results.
Interestingly in Nikon's MTF wide open 24mm the old version scores slightly better than the 24-70 24mm wide open, and the 24-120 does even better.
My experience, as an owner of all 3 lenses, is the Nikon MTF is about right.
scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
7 May 2012 5:41PM

Quote:Hi guys,

Yep, the old version was as soft as treacle and the new version looked like it would be better
Your experience (which seems based mainly on web comment) is different to mine - and to some extent Nikon's.
For several years Nikon promoted the old 24-120 VR as a pro lens suitable for FX Smile
I do not disagree at 24mm close focus it was soft - as were many wide angle zooms introduced 9 years ago - but used sensibly it was easily capable of pro results.
Interestingly in Nikon's MTF wide open 24mm the old version scores slightly better than the 24-70 24mm wide open, and the 24-120 does even better.
My experience, as an owner of all 3 lenses, is the Nikon MTF is about right.



I owned the old version for 3 years, so am talking from experience there. The new version I considered for FX but saw the MTF charts you've saw and then read the real-life comments and the varying reviews on the websites we all view and decided that the 24-70 was the way to go and have never looked back. As I said, I'm not saying it's a bad lens but the 24-70 would be my preffered choice.
thewilliam 6 4.8k
7 May 2012 7:14PM
I'd agree with Reichmann in that we need to carefully consider the intended use before choosing a lens. Zooms like the 24-70 are all very well when I'm working but when I'm not being paid to carry the lens, it's just too large and heavy. Likewise for my "professional" camera bodies.

In an ideal world, we'd have a range of lenses for different purposes. When walking, I'll carry the 18-55 kit lens or a couple of manual-focus primes with a D200 body in the full knowledge of their limitations. A competent photographer can get good pictures with pretty well any camera. The 24-120 was a serious contender for walkabout because it's fine with DX but it doesn't go wide enough.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.